9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber (T)]. The appellants, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., have been supplying Feedstock for the manufacture of Xylene to IPCL from 1989. The said Feedstock was supplied under the nomenclature C5+ Reformate. It described the item in the same way in excise documents and sale invoices also. The product was also specifically given partial exemption under Notification No. 102/90-C.E., dated 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n worked out to about Rs. 46 lakhs. The appellants challenged that part of the order before the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat and the High Court was pleased to remand the case for reconsideration. Thus, the penalty issue is before us again. 2.The submission of the learned counsel is that, the penalty would be imposable only if the declaration of the item as C5+ reformate is found to be a wilful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inted out that the item is an aromatic compound and it was rightly to be called Xylene reformate and the appellants were resorting to mis-description when they called it as C5 reformate. 4.We find merit in the contention of the appellant. The product was being described in the same manner in excise as well as commercial documents. The clearance of the goods were under approved classification li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant has accepted the classification and discharged the duty. Thus, the dispute was only legal in nature and not about bona fide. 5.In the view we have taken above, the imposition of penalty in terms of Section 11AC is not called for, inasmuch as that Section relates to penalty in cases involving fraud, misdeclaration, suppression of facts etc. Since these ingredients are absent in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
