TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much before issuance of SCN - Held that:- no malafide could be attributed in the present case against the appellant. They have intimated the non-duty paid clearances in all the three instances to the Jurisdictional officer. These clearances were indicated in the ER-1 though under the wrong category. The fact that full duty amount alongwith interest has been paid well before the issue of notice an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or interest thereon. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of SS Pipes and Tubes liable to Central Excise duty. During the period May 2006 to November 2006 they have cleared these dutiable items without payment of duty against letter of invalidation of EPCG licence issued by DGFT. They have been clearing without payment of duty their final products to 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty under CT-3 certificate to 100% EOUs. They also cleared the final products under EPCG invalidation letter to other units without payment of duty. They were under a bonafide belief that the clearances under invalidation letter can be made without payment of duty. In fact they have intimated the Jurisdictional Superintendent about these duty free clearances, specifically, each time. They had no in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt the appellants immediately paid the full duty liability alongwith interest. The show cause notice was issued much after the payment of duty and interest. The notice which was issued within the normal period did not allege any fraud, suppression of fact etc. Contravention of Rule 4, 6 and 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 were alleged. We find that no malafide could be attributed in the present ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
