9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was noticed that Shri Gupta disclosed that the factory was bifurcated in the year 1977 by creating another unit in the name and style of M/s. S.B. Enterprises in the same premises. It was therefore, alleged that bifurcation of the unit was resorted to avail the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 105/80 as amended by Notification No. 77/80 with the intention to contain the aggregate value of clearances from the two units to remain within the exemption limit. Show cause notice was accordingly issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why duty should not be demanded after clubbing the clearances of the two units and why penalty should not be imposed. 3. Shri A.C. Jain, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 2(d) of the Act and the petitioner is legally obliged to take a licence for manufacturing excisable goods as contemplated under Rule 174 of the Rules. This argument is also wholly untenable. A Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Nagarath Paints Private Limited v. The Union of India and Others (Civil Misc. Writ No. 2615 of 1972) decided on 5th December, 1977, expressed its agreement with the observation made in a decision of the Delhi High Court in Sulekh Ram and Sons v. Union of India [1972 Tax Law Reports 1771 = 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 525)] which followed the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. (A.I.R. 1957 SC 790) and J.K. Steel Ltd v. Union of India [A.I.R. 1970 SC 1173 = 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 355)] that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Item 68 or did not file revised classification list, it is a case of honest and genuine belief of a person that no duty was payable under that item. That being the position the imposition of penalty was not justified. Reference may be made to Hindustan Steel Limited v. State of Orissa (A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 253) = 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 159). The Ld. Counsel also referred to this Tribunal s judgment reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 648 wherein it was held that penalty was not imposable if there was no intention to evade payment of duty. He also referred to Board s letter dated 16-4-1981 in support of his contention that no penalty was imposable if the declaration is not filed. He submitted that in view of the submissions made by him, the order impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
