TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ani, President (for the bench)]. The appellant challenges the order dated 19-4-2007 made by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order-in-original by which the adjudicating authority directed recovery of Central Excise Duty of Rs. 59,896/- and imposed penalty of the like amount besides ordering recovery of the interest. 2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of wire cables and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods are required for the intended purpose. 3. In the present case, the adjudicating authority held that, the assessee did not prove that he had sent a certificate before clearance. The exemption was, therefore, denied, which order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. After hearing both the sides and going through the record, it appears that, the appellant had, in fact, obtained cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(a) of the said Notification dated 28-8-1999, as amended. According to the appellant, the said certificate was sent to the Divisional Office on 19-5-2005 by post Under Postal Certificate (UPC). The UPC which is on record shows that post was dispatched to the Deputy Commissioner Central Excise Division, Bhiwadi, on 19-5-2005. The adjudicating authority refused to rely on the said certificate on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , mere late receipt of the certificate by the Department should be considered to be a mere procedural lapse with which drastic consequence of denial of exemption need not be attached, keeping in view the injustice that may be called in a genuine case where the certificate is obtained but is not handed over to the Revenue in time for unavoidable reasons. In this context, the learned authorized repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
