9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs imposed on the appellants M/s. Metco Roof Private Limited under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (CER). 2. Heard both sides. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellants classified the goods roofing sheets of steel and purlins during 1-3-2004 to 28-2-2005 under Chapter Sub-heading 7308.90 of the Central Excise Tariff and availed exemption from payment of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to impose penalty under Section 11AC of the Act and imposed the impugned penalty under Rule 25 of the CER. 4. I find that classification of the impugned goods was in dispute and different Benches of this Tribunal had held different views on the issue. The dispute was finally resolved by a decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. v. CCE, reported in 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation issued under the Rules with intent to evade payment of duty. The Revenue has no case that the appellants had engaged in any transaction of the nature enlisted under Rule 25 of the CER so as to attract confiscation of any goods manufactured by it or to invite any penalty under the said Rule. 5. In the circumstances, the penalty imposed is set aside and this appeal allowed. (Dictated and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
