9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.K. Abichandani, 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner, received from such organization that the goods 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was in the category of international organization as per para (2)(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 ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained and in substance the appellant was entitled to the exemption, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
