9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has held that the Notification 103/95 will apply from 4th July, 1995, the date on which it was issued and that the polyester yarn that the appellant manufactured enjoyed in terms of Notification 36/95 will cease to be available from 4th July, 1995. He therefore demanded duty from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ends that the law as it stood on the date of clearance of the goods made it clear that duty was to be paid on that day and there was no justification for not paying duty. He refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Jain Agencies v. UOI, 1994 (72) E.L.T. 805 in this regard. 4. In Pankaj Jain Agencies, the Supreme Court refused to accept the contention of the appellant before it t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch a position highly improbable. The notification itself is dated 4th July, 1995, which shows that it was signed and issued on that day. Even allowing for the utmost despatch, it is difficult to consider that the existence of the notification could have been known to the appellant and the department before the late afternoon or evening of that day. Whether, when it was received, the appellant's of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears to be contrary to the settled law. What that we wish to emphasise is that it is not proper of the department to impose penalty solely because the appellant declined to comply with the officer's demand for depositing the duty. This is the reason that the Commissioner has ordered in his order. The show cause notice does not furnish any specific ground. In this situation, we are satisfied that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
