TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of the certificate i.e. 25-10-2004 which goes to show that the appellant was in possession of the requisite certificate - appellant could not produce the same at the time of clearance which was produced subsequently along with ER-1 returns - if there is any lapse it is not more than a technical lapse and for technical lapse substantial benefit cannot be denied – in favor of assessee - E/437 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended. However, the appellant did not produce the requisite certificate required under the said Notification to the proper officer before clearance of the goods and produced the said certificate only on 10-2-2005. The benefit of Notification was denied to the appellant for not fulfilling the condition of producing the certificate at the time of clearance of the goods. Accordingly demand was raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equisite certificate No. SS, 1670 WOT(K), dated 25-10-2004 were furnished which goes to show that they were in possession of the certificate at the time of clearance of the goods. However, the appellant could not produce the copy of the same at the time of clearance which they have submitted along with the ER-1 return. Therefore it is only a technical lapse and for that substantial benefit cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rance which was produced subsequently along with ER-1 returns. We find that it is not a case where the appellant applied for the certificate to the competent authority after the removal of the goods. The Department did not challenge the veracity of the said certificate at any stage. Even if there is any lapse it is not more than a technical lapse and for technical lapse substantial benefit cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
