TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tifying that the product manufactured by the appellant is as per the standards prescribed under BIS. On this basis the bonafide belief of the appellant is found factually correct. As per the claim of the appellant, the same product which was subsequently certified by BIS was in conformation to the standards of BIS, therefore, the appellant have rightly entertained the belief that their product is exempted under N/N. 8/2003. There is no malafide on the part of the appellant with intent to evade payment of duty. For the demand under extended period in the present case for the period 01.01.2007 to 18.03.2009, the show cause notice was issued on 04.04.2012 which is much after the normal period of one year. Since the appellant had no mala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that the product in question is as per the standard of BIS. He submits that as per the Notification also there is no requirement of the certificate. The only need is the product manufactured by the assessee should be in conformation to the standards specified under BIS which is not in dispute. In the present case, only for te reason that the certificate could not be obtained, the Exemption cannot be denied so long the product is having the standard of BIS. He submits that since the appellant had a bonafide belief that the pump manufactured by them is in conformation to the standard of BIS no suppression of fact can be attributed to the appellant. He submits that the bonafide of the appellant was proved on the basis of the certificate issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct is exempted under Notification No. 8/2003. We also note that the submission of the appellant that the Notification does not prescribe the issuance of certificate to prove that the specifications of the product or the standards of the product is in conformation to BIS found force and prima facie strongly support to them. On all these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there is no malafide on the part of the appellant with intent to evade payment of duty. For the demand under extended period in the present case for the period 01.01.2007 to 18.03.2009, the show cause notice was issued on 04.04.2012 which is much after the normal period of one year. As we discussed above, since the appellant had no malafide intentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
