2017 (5) TMI 552 - CESTAT MUMBAI - Central Excise

Head Note / Extract:
Handicrafts - N/N. 76/86-CE - case of appellant is that since the impugned goods are in the nature of handicraft and exempt under N/N. 76/86-C.E., no demand of duty can be confirmed against the appellant - circular no. 128/396/95-CX dated 25.05.1995 - Held that: - the onus to establishing that the goods cleared by them are handicraft is on the appellant - the appellant have produced certain certificates from the Development Commissioner wherein certain products have been certified to be handicrafts. The said certificates are not in respect of the impugned goods. It is also not clear if the said certificates are in respect of similar goods. The revenue had given the appellant an option to get the goods examined before clearance, however, the appellant chose not to do so. In the absence of any evidence to support the claim by the appellant that the goods are handicraft, we are unable to interfere with the impugned order in so far as the demand of duty is concerned. Penalty u/r 25 of CER - Held that: - the penalty u/r 25 cannot be imposed as the issue is of interpretation. The appellant had a bonafide belief and were in connection with the revenue for this purpose - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.