9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve made a prayer to decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly I have heard learned SDR, Shri A. Thete appeared for the Revenue. 2. As per facts on record appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Pipes, which were being cleared by them under exemption Notification No. 47/2002-C.E., dated 6-9-2002. As the appellant was not maintaining separate records for the inputs used in the manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e calculating the amount of 8% required to be paid at the price of the goods, the appellants were lowering the said price by deducting the same by an amount of 8%, as if the same was central excise duty. This resulted in less payment of Rs. 61,624/-. The same stands confirmed by the lower authorities by relying upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e however note that there is no requirement of payment of duty as the goods are exempted. It is only the credit to which the appellants were not entitled as the inputs were used in the manufacture of exempted products that the credit was allowed subject to the condition that either the appellants maintained a separate account and take no credit and if they are not in a position to maintain separat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty along with confirmation of interest. 6. As regards penalty of Rs. 61,624/-, I find that the price of the goods was being lowered by the appellant on the invoices itself and it is not the case of the Revenue that the said fact was being suppressed by the appellant from the department. In that case the appellant could have been under a bona fide belief that such deduction of 8% from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
