TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. These applications filed by the Revenue (appellant) are for stay of operation of the impugned order, wherein learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Revenue s claim for interest on an amount debited in DEPB in connection with import of certain goods by the respondents. 2. After hearing both sides and considering their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EPB. This demand was affirmed by the original authority, but set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Ld. JDR, arguing against the appellate Commissioner s decision, submits that the exemption under the above Notification was contingent upon debit of equivalent amount in DEPB and, therefore, cannot be considered to be on par with a normal exemption. It is argued that the debit should be treat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty leviable. In this case, there was no such payment of duty of customs and hence there is no question of levy of interest from the respondents. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we have not found a good case for the Revenue for recovery of interest. The applicant has not been able to establish that the debit in DEPB was of duty of customs. Ld. JDR, in answer to a query f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
