TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notification envisages manufacturing of goods in the hands of the job worker and receiving the same back and after doing some activity clear the same on payment of Central Excise duty - In the case in hand, appellant could not have imagined or visualised that the said FSPL was not undertaking any manufacturing activity at his hand despite making a declaration under N/N. 214/86. In the absence of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout payment of duties on the bona fide belief that they are not required to pay the duty as FSPL had filed a declaration with the authorities for manufacturing under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. Subsequently, on an investigation it was found out that FSPL was misutilising the benefit of Notification No. 8/2006-C.E. On a conclusion that the appellant has to discharge the duty liability show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission that question of imposing penalty under Rule 25 or Rule 26 does not arise as the appellant has not contravened any of the provisions for to visit them with penalty. 4. Ld. DR on the other hand would submit that the said FSPL has misutilised the provision of the Central Excise Rules and hence the goods cleared by the appellant are dutiable in his hands as a manufacturer and having not di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lear the same on payment of Central Excise duty. In the case in hand, appellant could not have imagined or visualised that the said FSPL was not undertaking any manufacturing activity at his hand despite making a declaration under Notification No. 214/86. In the absence of this, we find that the appellant was correct in pleading before the lower authorities that penalties cannot be imposed on them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
