TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant has been filing periodical returns in Form E.R-1 to the department and hence the grounds of suppression cannot be alleged against the appellant. In any case, the amendment to N/N. 8/2003 resulted in significant change in the method of computing aggregate value of clearance of excisable goods for home consumption. In view of this major change, that there were doubts and uncertainties in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified under tariff sub heading 9017.10 attracting nil duty as per tariff. In addition, they manufacture stamp pad and self inking stamps classified under tariff sub heading 9612.00 and 9611.00 respectively. The same were cleared without payment of duty by availing exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 during the period 2003-04. Notification No.8/2003-CE granting SSI exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant for the period 2003-04, the same exceeded the value of ₹ 300 lakhs. Accordingly, the appellant became ineligible for the benefit of SSI exemption vide Notification No.8/2003 for the financial year 2004-05. Since the appellant had availed duty free clearances under the said notification during the period 1.4.2004 to 21.6.2004, duty was demanded for the above period by denia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting the amended provisions of the SSI notification No.8/2003. Accordingly, he prayed that penalty imposed may be set aside. 4. Ld. D.R supported the impugned order. 5. The short levy of duty has arisen as a result of the amendment carried out in the Notification No.8/2003-CE dt. 1.3.2003 w.e.f. 1.4.2003. The redetermination of the aggregate value of clearances of non-excisable goods for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re doubts and uncertainties in the financial year preceding the month. Consequently, we are of the view that the imposition of penalty under section 11AC is not justified and hence is set aside. However, since the appellant is not challenging the differential duty demand, the same is upheld along with demand of interest ordered by the lower authorities. 6. In line with the above discussions, ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
