TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed exemption under Notification No. 161/71 and on rejection of the request for extending the benefit of the said notification by the department, they cleared the vehicles on payment of duty taking the highest approximate value of the vehicles. In the present case, the issue is only of payment of differential duty which also they paid before issuance of show-cause notice. Therefore, we do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Nashik. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents have cleared 105 Nos. of prototype vehicle on the price fixed by their marketing department, which was subject to various trials. The prototype vehicles were not intended for sale and therefore the respondent made request to allow the benefit under Notification No. 161/71 dated 11.7.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reiterates the grounds of appeal. He further submits that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the penalty only on relying the judgment of the Tribunal in case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vishakhapattanam - 2003 (161) ELT 285 (Tri-Bang) and Larger Bench judgement of the Tribunal in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III Vs. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id the duty along with interest. It is his submission that right from beginning the entire facts of the clearance of prototype vehicle was in the knowledge of the department and therefore, there is no mala fide intention for evasion of any payment of excise duty. He also submits that there is no show-cause notice for non-payment or short payment of excise duty and in the show-cause notice issued f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the vehicles. In the present case, the issue is only of payment of differential duty which also they paid before issuance of show-cause notice. Therefore, we do not find any mala fide intention on the part of the respondent and the facts clearly show that there is no intention of evasion of any duty. Taking into consideration the overall facts, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly drop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
