TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has suppressed the fact from the department with intention to evade Central Excise duty, which is not correct. Provisions of Section 11A(2B), as it stood during the relevant period, specifically states for non-issuance of show cause notice on discharging duty liability and the interest thereof, on ascertainment of duty liability by an assessee on their own or on being pointed out by the Central Excise officer. As already recorded herein above, it is the claim of appellant that due to mis-interpretation of the clause of the notification the duty was short paid during the relevant period, which made good by the appellant before issuance of show cause notice. If this be so, it cannot be said that the appellant had intention to evade payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of Central Excise duty with interest was on 10 th and 12 th June, 2006. The said letter categorically states that this error was committed by consultant as to the purpose of computation of value of clearance the value of the exempted goods was not considered. They claimed that it was an interpretation issue. On receipt of this letter and payment particulars, Revenue issued show cause notice dated 08/03/2007 seeking explanation as to why the demands be not confirmed along with interest and the amounts paid be appropriated and penalties be not imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant contested only the imposition of penalties before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority recorded a findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which when noticed was deposited before issuance of the show cause notice. Hence penalty be set aside. 4. Learned Authorised Representative draws my attention to paragraph No.10 in the order-in-appeal and submits that the appellant had not filed the declaration from 2001-02 till the date the show cause notice was issued which calls to show cause as to why penal provisions should not be invoked, which itself show that there was intention of suppressing the value of goods for availing the benefit of notification. He also draws my attention to paragraph No.11 of the impugned order to submit that plea of bona fide belief, was raised before the first appellate authority for the first time in order to reduce the penalty imposed on them, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issuance of show cause notice on discharging duty liability and the interest thereof, on ascertainment of duty liability by an assessee on their own or on being pointed out by the Central Excise officer. As already recorded herein above, it is the claim of appellant that due to mis-interpretation of the clause of the notification the duty was short paid during the relevant period, which made good by the appellant before issuance of show cause notice. If this be so, it cannot be said that the appellant had intention to evade payment of Central Excise duty on the branded goods manufactured and cleared by them. I find that the decision of the apex Court in the case of Chamundi Die Cast (P) Ltd (supra) specifically holds that if an assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
