2009 (1) TMI 575

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sides. 2. Smt. Sanyukta Gupta, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the impugned order has been passed by the Lower Appellate authority setting aside the duty demand and reducing the penalty from Rs. 16,14,885/- to Rs. 50,000/-. The Lower Appellate authority has held that in regard to the finished goods made by the job workers, the same have been returned back to the appellants .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... She also says that there are precedent decisions holding that wastes and scraps are not finished goods. In view of the fact that Rule 4(6) does not apply to clearance of wastes and scrap, the appellants cannot be penalized for not taking permission for clearance of the same on payment of duty. 3. Heard the ld. D.R. Shri Sharma who supports the impugned order. However, he is not in a position to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X