2008 (7) TMI 267

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....[Judgment per: D.A. Mehta, J]. - The appellant-Revenue has proposed the following two questions: (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the penalty imposed on the respondent on the ground that there was no justification for imposition of penalty as duty required to be paid had already been paid before the issuance of the show cause not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under: 3. The relevant facts, in brief are as under: (a) The appellant is manufacturer of Pet Preform, purchased Poly Ethylene Terephthalate (Pet.) Resins, which is one of the raw material from M/s South Asian Petrochem Ltd. (b) The 100% EOU ought to have paid duty @ 19.6%, but the recipient of the raw material was not eligible for entire 19.6%, but only at 9.6%. The 100% EOU who supplied....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sible that recipient was genuinely under the impression that they were getting from a DTA unit and are eligible for full credit. No evidence about the knowledge on the part of the appellant that they were procuring from 100% EOU, has been brought out. Therefore, the benefit of doubt that they were not knowing that the supplying unit was a 100% EOU, has to be given to the appellant. Therefore, I do....