2016 (1) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Respondent : Mr. N. Jagadish, A.R. ORDER Per : Archana Wadhwa Nobody appeared for the appellant.  Accordingly, we have heard learned A.R. and have gone through the impugned order. 2. As per the facts on record, the appellant is a 100% EOU, being manufacturers of essential oils and sandal wood oil and sap wood  paste etc.  The dispute lies in a very narrow compass.  Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es stands imposed. 4. We find that there is no dispute about the facts.  Revenue is not disputing the fact  that the appellant was otherwise entitled to do the job work for the DTA unit  if the  relevant permission was taken.  They are also not making any allegation against the assessee that the clearance of the sandal wood oil in question was not on account of job work d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dural conditions may not.   It is the Revenues case that if the permission of the Development Commissioner was  sought,  it would have been granted by him    in the ordinary course.  The appellant was entitled to do job work for the principal manufacturer located in DTA.  In such a scenario, we are of the view that non-taking of the permission, though .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X