TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.S. Srova, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. Duty demand of Rs. 6,45,447/- with interest as applicable has been confirmed and the penalty equal to the duty amount has been imposed on the appellant on the ground that they had cleared physicians samples on payment of duty in terms of provisions of Rule 8 of Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowed by the department till the same was reversed in the year 2005. Therefore, he submitted that extended period could not have been invoked since the appellants followed the law as they understood as different interpretations were possible. Therefore, intention to evade duty cannot be said to be existing in this case. Learned DR reiterated the arguments advanced in the impugned order. 3. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eneficial for the assessee are bound to be implemented by the officers of the department, there is no such law laid down by the Hon ble Court that the circular issued by the Board is binding on the assessees as well as on the Tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be said since Board issued a circular the assessee is not entitled to entertain an opinion which is different from the circular issued. Further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
