TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2009 no evidence of any positive action has been shown to prove that the assessee has wilfully not paid the demanded duty amount. The only allegation that has been made is that after the withdrawal of the exemption notification 10/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003, vide Notification no. 10/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006, the assessee became liable to pay duty from 01.03.2006 from which date the instant demand has been raised - appeal remanded to the original authority to quantify the duty for normal period i.e. 23-3-2006 to 22-3-2007 and to appropriate the same towards the amount already paid. In absence of any positive action brought on record and in view of the circumstances which prevailed for non- payment of duty, the larger period of limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant did not intentionally pay duty on the goods classifiable under chapter sub heading 48201090 of the Central Excise Tariff which became liable to duty on 01.03.2006 after withdrawal of exemption notification no. 10/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003, vide Notification no. 10/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. As soon as the proceeding was initiated by the Department, the appellant company discharged payment of entire duty which was calculated by the department. In the course of adjudication, the appellant pleaded that there was no wilful suppression to evade payment of duty inasmuch as the supply contract specifically provided by LIC clearly contained clauses whereby LIC would reimburse the duty amount as applicable. The appellant also contended that they w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absence of any wilful suppression, more specifically when the duty liability arose on withdrawal of exemption notification. He relied on the decisions in the case of Grand Ashok vs. CCE Bangalore2019 (365) E.L.T. 828 (Tri. - Bang.), Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. CCE 1994 (74) ELT 9 (SC), Cosmic Dye Chemical vs. CCE 1995 (75) ELT 721 (SC) as well as CCE vs. Chemphar Drugs Liniments 1989 (40) ELT 276 (SC) to plead his case of limitation. On the same count, he contested the imposition of penalties on the company as well as the Director. 5. The Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue supported the findings made in the impugned order of the Ld. Commissioner and contended that duty amount was paid only after the investigation was initi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies manufactured by the appellant under the job work of LIC do not bear any price and are not meant to be traded by LIC. In such a scenario, the definition of brand name is not satisfied and the provision of clause 4 of the notification would not apply. Such diaries are being manufactured by the appellant under the job work on orders of LIC which were meant to be used as gifts by LIC and it cannot be said that the appellant has manufactured the same with the brand name of another person. As such, we are of the view that the Revenue s stand lacks merit. Identical views have also been taken in the case of:- Neat Prints vs. CCE 2018 TIOL-563-CESTAT-Mum Shruti Art Pvt Ltd. vs. CCE 2018-TIOL-3435-CESTAT-Mum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvestigation or audit. The appellant having submitted the documents like Balance Sheets as and when asked by the department and having paid duty, in protest or otherwise; before issue of show cause notice do not appear to have suppressed any material fact to warrant invocation of extended period. Thus, we find that the show cause notice is barred by limitation and consequently, the demand is liable to be restricted to one year i.e., 2005-06 and hence, penalty under Section 11AC is required to be set aside. 7. In view of the above, we allow the appeal by way of remand to the original authority to quantify the duty for normal period i.e. 23-3-2006 to 22-3-2007 and to appropriate the same towards the amount already paid. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
