Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1188 - AT - Central ExciseExemption of duty - Notification No. 10/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- Appellant's product was exempted prior to 01.03.2006. They were maintaining proper records and were filing "NIL" returns with their jurisdictional central excise officers. Even after the withdrawal of the exemption notification, they continued to file "NIL" returns with the same jurisdictional authorities even though it is on record that the office of the jurisdiction was changed from S.C. Road to Vijayanagar. However, it is also a fact on record that on receipt of the ST-3 returns, officers at SC Road never returned the said returns to the appellant with direction to them to file it in the proper office. Further, the officers at SC Road accepted the said returns and never raised the issue of payment of duty. The appellant's lapses came to notice, for the first time with the visit of the audit party. The statement of their Managing Director recorded on the spot indicates that the appellant was unaware of the fact of excisability of the said product. Though, not knowing the law cannot be taken as an excuse but if overall facts are viewed i.e, the appellant's maintaining proper records, filing of proper returns, acceptance of such returns by the concerned officer, the statement of the Managing Director; the same leads to an inevitable conclusion that non-payment of duty was not as a result of any malafide intention but was a pure mistake on the part of the officer. If the departmental officers, who accepted the returns also were not aware of the levy of duty and withdrawal of exemption, the assessee, who is not a legal expert cannot be blamed for that. It is not a case of clandestine removal inasmuch as all the removals were part of the statutory records. It is well settled that provisions of Section 11AC can be invoked only in case of malafide and willful intention to evade payment of duty. As such, I am of the view that imposition of penalty on the appellant is not justified - Decided in favour of assessee.
|