2009 (5) TMI 91

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i Ashwani Sharma with Sudeep Vijayan, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Rastogi, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) (Oral)]. - After hearing both sides for a while on the stay petition, we felt that the appeals themselves could be finally disposed of, and accordingly, we waive pre-deposit of the dues as per the impugned order and proceed to dispose of the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ay the additional levy. They applied for registration on 22-9-06 and also paid an amount of Rs. 8,12,869/-. This amount has been arrived at by them after taking into account the benefit under Notification No. 6/05. The original authority held that the appellants were not registered during the relevant period and that they have not claimed the exemption under Notification No. 6/2005, and, therefore....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... imposition of penalty are not sustainable. He also submits that penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the proprietor of the firm in addition to the imposition of penalty on the appellant firm is not at all justified. Learned Advocate is not contesting the duty payable at the rate of 6% which has already been paid in terms of the Notification No. 6/05. 4. Learned DR reiterates the finding of the C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y. Further, on the basis of clarification given during the visit of the officers, they immediately took the registration and paid up dues as per the effective rate of duty applying the notification  6/2005. The Notification No. 6/2005 does not contain any condition that the benefit under the said Notification is available only to a registered unit. Reliance placed on the decision of the Supre....