CST Vs. SHAH ALLOYS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER rejecting the request for staying the operation of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has held in favour of the respondent, we proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as a short issue is involved. For better appreciation of the disputed issue, we reproduce Para 7 & 8 of the impugned order.

(2.) REVENUE in their memo of appeal has not disputed that the appellants were otherwise entitled to the abatement. Their only objection is that there was a general declaration by the transporter, which cannot be held to be a sufficient compliance with the procedural aspect.

(3.) WE find no merit in the present appeal of the Revenue and reject the same.