TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that it was only a mistake of the appellant of not paying duty during the relevant period. Accordingly, I hold that the charge of suppression against the appellant is not sustainable. As the charge of suppression is not sustainable, consequently, mandatory penalty under section 11AC is not imposable on them. With these terms, I set aside penalty equal to the duty - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/2307/2010 - FINAL ORDER NO.51601/2015 - Dated:- 7-5-2015 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate For the Respondent:Shri Devender Singh, AR ORDER PER: ASHOK JINDAL The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order imposing penalty under section 11AC o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills- 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC), the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the penalty against the appellant. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that this is inadvertent mistake committed by the appellant during the impugned period that they could not maintain record of their clearance and that they were not aware that they have exceeded exemption limit as per Notification No.8/03. When the investigation was conducted in the factory of premises by the investigating officers and pointed out by them that they have exceeded the exemption limit, they have paid duty on the clearances alongwith interest. He furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be the defence for non imposition of penalty as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills. He also relied on the judgement of Karnataka High Court in the case of CC, Bangalore vs. M/s. American Power Conversion (India) Pvt.Ltd.-2014 ((1) ECS 78 (HC-Kar) and Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors-2008-TIOL-192-SC-CX-LB. He submits that ignorance of law cannot be an excuse while availing value based exemption. They should have been careful of exceeding of their turnover. 6. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 7. It is fact on record that investigation was conducted on 14.03.2005 wherein it was found that turnover of the appellant exceeded from the exemption limit during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
