TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n adopted by the respondent - secondly, the issue was debatable and various contrary decisions were existing during the relevant period therefore respondent have rightly entertained the bonafide belief. There is no suppression of facts on the part of the respondent, accordingly, order passed by the Ld. Commissioner cannot be interfered with - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/300/08 - A/90346/17/EB - Dated:- 31-10-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. A.B. Kulgod, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Appellants Shri. Sanandan Khairnar, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that respondent were engaged in the manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Revenue filed the present appeal. 2. For the portion of demand dropped on time bar Shri. A.B. Kulgod, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He further submits that issue was clarified by Board Circular dated 25-4-2005 therefore it was responsibility of the respondent to follow board circular and pay the duty as per the clarification issued, therefore after issuing circular non payment of correct duty amount to suppression of facts therefore the Commissioner has wrongly dropped the demand on time bar. He further submits that respondent have not revealed the facts regarding short payment that it is only after investigation started and sought the details from the respondent depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of C. Ex. Belapur[2014(300) ELT 437(TrI. Mumbai)] (c) Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad II Vs. ACME Health Care [2005(!89)ELT 82(Tri.)] He further submits that issue involved is of interpretation of law, no penalty was warranted. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Vs Alicon Pharma P. Ltd[2015(322)ELT 47 (GUJ)] (b) Marsha Pharma Ltd Vs. Commission of C. Ex. Vadodara[2009(248)ELT 687(Tri. Ahmd.)] (c) Modipon Fibres Company Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Ghaziabad[2012(284)ELT 561(Tri. Del.)] He further submits that mere omission on the part of the respondent cannot be construed as suppression of facts as held in the following judgments: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 5. We find that as regard the merit of the case there is no dispute on duty demand hence on merit it is correct and legal as same was admitted by the respondent as they have not challenged the merit against the order of the Commissioner(Appeals). The present appeal filed by the Revenue only on the issue of limitation on the ground that Ld. Commissioner has wrongly dropped the demand for extended period. We find that Ld. Commissioner has given finding on the facts as well as on the ground that issue involved is of interpretation of law which was settled in view of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Indian Drugs Manufacturers Assocn(supra). We find that first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
