TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CE Act. He has also reduced the penalty under Rule 173Q to Rs. 10,000/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Pectin and extracts from the lime peel, used as a preservative in the manufacture of Jelly and Jams and these items were dutiable till 1994-95. The goods fall under tariff sub-heading No. 1301.10. The goods became non-dutiable in terms of Finance Bill, 1995 and the same position continued till 1996-97. However, by Finance Bill 1997, levy of Central Excise duty on the goods was re-introduced. The assessee had obtained necessary licence and cleared the goods viz. Pectin on payment of appropriate duty till 1994-95. The officers of the Preventive on scrutiny of the invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not acceptable and in case of any doubt, they could have sought for clarification from the department. In the circumstances, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) modifying the order-in-original is not legal and proper and he prayed for allowing the appeal. 4. Shri J. Sankararaman, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee-respondents submitted that the goods were non-dutiable for the period from 1994-95 to 1996-97 and the goods became dutiable in terms of the Finance Bill, 1997. The assessee had paid the duty voluntarily vide TR 6 Challan 1 2 dated 17-2-1998 being the duty for the clearances effected over and above the exemption limit. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that the assessee had deliberately suppressed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, it cannot be said that there was mala fide intention on the part of the assessee to evade payment of duty. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the lower appellate authority that the assessees were clearing the goods by raising invoices even after the rate of duty became nil on the goods, and hence the bona fide belief on the part of the assessee that the goods were non-dutiable, cannot be found fault with and accordingly the allegation of suppression fails as rightly held by the lower appellate authority and the extended period cannot be invoked against the assessee. Consequently mandatory penalty equal to duty cannot be demanded and so also interest under Section 11AB. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
