TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - Shri P.N. Sen, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants submits that they removed eight consignments of un-machined cast articles falling under Chapter 84 to their sister concern at Hyderabad after payment of duty of Rs. 41,732.26. However, subsequently on coming to know that no duty was payable by them in terms of the provisions of Notification No. 217/8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... written a letter which was produced before the authorities below that no duty element is being paid by them as they should not have paid the duty. This fact has also been admitted by the Commissioner (Appeals), but he is proceeding on the hypothesis that once debit note is raised by the assessees than irrespective of the fact that whether they received the amount from their customers or not, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants not having received the duty amount from their customers. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is not disputed that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the notification if they would have followed the procedure of Chapter X. Referring to the decision relied upon by the ld. Consultant we find that it is almost well-settled position of law that non-foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals). It is admitted that the duty levy has not been received from the appellants from their sister unit at Hyderabad. Merely raising of demand by itself is not sufficient to prove that the duty element has been received by the appellants from their sister concern as has been observed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In any case we find that the appellants unit at Calcutta and their unit at Hyder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
