2006 (1) TMI 435

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of the penalty amount of Rs. 50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand), we take up the appeal itself with the consent of both sides. 2. In the year, 1991, the appellant company entered into a contract with M/s. ABM Architects (P) Ltd., Bombay for designing of office lay-out and supervising the interior designin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was entered into in the year 1991 when the issue as to whether the furniture would be considered as a handicraft so as to be entitled to the exemption, was not settled. He submits that the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Louis Shoppe reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 571 (T) has held that such wooden furniture would be entitled to exemption under Notification No. 76/86-C.E. It wa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... made to various other decisions laying down that bona fide belief taken on the basis of Tribunal s decision will not result in imposition of any penalty. 4. After hearing the learned J.D.R. for the Revenue, we find that as observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal was holding a particular view which was in favour of the assessee. In such a scenario, the imposition of any penalty upon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X