TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cle numbers, the details of supplier and manufacturers as required by both Notification & Circular dated 18-8-1994 – Held that:- Authorities could not find non-receipt of the goods in the premises of the appellant. When they took only two months for issuance of Show Cause Notice they did not make any enquiry at the supplier’s end. When the receipt of the goods was not questioned nor delivery of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igation before Tribunal. It is also his averment that when the appellant could not make pre-deposit, they were leniently considered in the past for waiver in terms of Stay Order No. S/88/2000-NB (SM), dated 30-12-1999. In view of such lenient consideration and the aging of litigation, there may not be insistence for pre-deposit. Ld. Counsel further submits that at the original stage the disallowan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmit all the particulars for admissibility of the claim. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. 5. Looking to the length of litigation, it is no more desire to keep it pending. Therefore, both stay application and appeal are taken up for analogous hearing and disposal. Following the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Super Tyres Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India - 2005 (186) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... end. When the receipt of the goods was not questioned nor delivery of the seller is questioned, the Show Cause Notice lost its foundation. In absence of any allegation of non-receipt of the goods and also for any allegation of non-delivery of the goods, the appellant succeeds. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed annulling the duty demand of Rs. 1,94,884/-. 6. In so far as the penalty is concerned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
