TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditioners, was claimed and availed of. It is not a case where any facts were suppressed. Demand is not maintainable. - 1069 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 16-7-2008 - D.A. Mehta and H.N. Devani, JJ. Shri R.J. Oza, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : D.A. Mehta, J. (Oral)]. - Appellant revenue has proposed the following three questions. (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in extending the benefit of doubt to the respondents and in holding despite the evidence that the case would not be equated with that of clandestine removal and whether the Tribunal has erred in law in upholding the setting aside of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner Floor/Tower Type, (iv) Split Air-conditioner Part-water Cooled Type, (v) Air-conditioner Kit Part assembly with and coil/condenser without compressor, (vi) Air-conditioner Kit Part assembly with assembly and Compressor without coil, and (vii) Fan Blade Blower 7. It appears that the factory had also filed price declaration for their finished products under Sub-rule 2A of the Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and declaration dated 30-3-2000 under Sub-rule 3A of Rule 173C of the Rules. 8. The respondent mentioned in respect of "Parts" the type of duty as only Basic Excise Duty whereas in respect of complete machine, they have mentioned both Basic Excise Duty and Special Excise Duty. The respondent cleared Air-condi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal) challenging part of the order made by Commissioner (Appeals) whereunder the penalty had been deleted. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal has held that it was agreed that split air conditioners after assembly, would be a full fledged air conditioning unit but merely because sub-assemblies were described as parts of air conditioners, the same could not be treated as a deliberate attempt to evade tax. The Tribunal has further noted that the respondent assessee appears to have interpreted the notification in a manner beneficial to the assessee and such an act cannot be equated with a case of clandestine removal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant revenue. The facts narrated in the order-in-original have been reite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
