TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal vide the said final order dated 24-3-2004 had disallowed the imposition of penalty under Rule 173-Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the mistaken ground that during the relevant period i.e 20-3-2001 to 21-4-2004 Rule 173-Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not in force. The learned Hon ble Member (J) in the said judgment has observed that the said Rule was not in force during the period in dispute. 3. The learned JDR representing the Revenue has pleaded that this was an apparent mistake on the records which has escaped the attention of the Tribunal. 4. From the record, I find that in the Misc. application for Rectification of Mistake the Revenue had prayed to the following extent: The issue relates to disallowing of imposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal has already made it clear considering the facts and circumstances that no penalty is imposable in their case. Further, he has also pointed out that no particular clause of Rule 173-Q had been allegedly contravened by them neither in the show cause notice nor in the order of the Commissioner. In view of this, he contends that by reviving the provisions of Rule 173-Q, they should not be penalized. He relies upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's guidelines in the case of Amrit Foods v. CCE, UP [2005 (190) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)]. 6. In order to show that Rule 173-Q was very much operative till 30-6-2001, the Revenue is relying upon para 1(3) of the Notification No. 9/01-CE(NT), dated 1st March, 2001 which had introduced Central Excise Rules, 2001. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rongly availed the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28-8-1995 against the goods supplied to West Bengal State Electricity Board, a project funded by Japan Bank for International Cooperation (J.B.I.C) on the mistaken notion that such goods were exempt from duty when supplied to the United Nation or an International Organisation for their official use or supplied to projects financed by them and approved by the Govt. of India. 9. The Revenue in their Misc. Application has contended only the issue which relates to disallowing of imposition of penalty under Rule 173-Q and has accepted the position with regard to interest under Section 11-AB which has been held illegally by the Tribunal in the recalled order dated 24-3-2004. I, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
