9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssifiable under Chapter Heading 39.19 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were supplying the goods in bulk for industrial use to cigarette manufacturers such as M/s. ITD Ltd., VST Industries Ltd., M/s. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. and M/s. G.T.C. Industries Ltd. w.e.f 16-11-2000. They were working under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 as self-adhesive tapes were notified by Notfn. No. 52/2000-C.E. (N.T.), dated 16-11-2000 and subsequent notifications. It is their case that they were selling their goods in bulk to industrial users mainly to cigarette manufacturers as well as other users. It is stated by them that this practice was accepted and continued till the appellant themselves wrote a letter to the Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd by their notification. In this case, they relied on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of HM Bags v. CCE [1997 (94) E.L.T. 3]. Their contention is that when the amounts have been deposited by them voluntarily, there was no question of invoking larger period. They stated that even penalties are not imposable as the duty and interest have been paid much before the issue of show cause notice. In this regard, they relied on large number of judgments in their favour especially the judgment rendered by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE v. Shri Krishna Pipe Industries Ltd. [2004 (165) E.L.T. 508]. They also referred to Tribunal judgments on this point rendered in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE [2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Cosmic Dye Chemical v. CCE (supra). He submitted that there cannot be imposition of penalty in the matter as they had deposited the duties on their own accord and there was no suppression in the matter. The Department had issued the show cause notice only after they had informed the Department about their change assessment of Section 4 of the Act and deposited the duty. 3. Ld. DR submitted that the larger period was invocable and penalty imposable in view of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Indian Oil Blending Ltd. v. CCE [2002 (53) RLT 224]. 4. On a careful consideration of the facts of this case, it is very clear that there was a clear doubt pertaining to the assessment of the goods cleared to industrial bulk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent case there was a doubt lingering in the mind of the assessee with regard to the assessments to be done under the different provisos of the Act. In these circumstances, the Tribunal in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (supra) has held that when clarification has been given by the Board and the doubt has been cleared then it cannot be said that there was suppression and larger period is required to be invoked. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Cosmic Dye Chemicals (supra) and that of Pushpam Pharma also deals with the aspect pertaining to non-invocation of larger period. The said situations would clearly apply to the facts of the case. It is further held by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE v. Shri Krishna P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
