2006 (4) TMI 379 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of duty not paid on clearances of cotton towels.
2. Imposition of penalty under various rules.
3. Confiscation of seized goods.
4. Claim of bona fide belief for non-payment of duty.
5. Justification of demand based on case laws.
6. Request for waiver of penalty.
7. Comparison with similar case law.
8. Ignorance of law as an excuse.
9. Examination of plea of bona fide belief.
10. Reduction of penalty.

Analysis:

1. The Commissioner demanded an amount of duty not paid on clearances of cotton towels by the appellants during 1994-95 and 95-96 following the withdrawal of exemption and imposition of duty as per a notification dated 1 March 1994. He also imposed an equal amount of penalty on the appellant under various rules and confiscated seized goods valued at Rs. 11,100 with an option for redemption on payment of a fine.

2. The impugned order was passed in compliance with the remand directions of the Bench. The Commissioner re-determined the duty liability and justified the demand based on case laws, emphasizing that the assessee should have been vigilant. The appellants argued for a restriction on the demand to the normal period and requested waiver of penalty, citing their systematic maintenance of accounts and payment of other taxes.

3. The appellants reiterated their claim of bona fide belief for non-payment of duty, supported by the fact that many other manufacturers in the region had also not paid duty due to ignorance of the withdrawal of exemption. The counsel for the appellant referenced a case law to argue against the imposition of penalty based on ignorance of the law.

4. The respondent defended the Commissioner's order, asserting that ignorance of the law was not a valid excuse for non-payment of duty.

5. The Tribunal considered the appellants' plea of bona fide belief and the issue of ignorance of the withdrawal of exemption. The Commissioner's findings supported the appellants' claim of bona fide belief, leading to a reduction in the penalty imposed. The Tribunal emphasized that the duty had been paid before confirmation by the officers, indicating no intention to evade payment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the demand for duty but reduced the penalty imposed on the appellants to Rs. 10,000, considering the circumstances and the plea of bona fide belief.