2009 (7) TMI 1048

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pugned Order whereby the penalty of equal amount of the confirmed demand was imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants submitted that they cleared the goods to Ship Builders by availing the benefit of Notification No. 64/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 and the same has been reflected in the RT-12 Returns. It is only by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Goa Paint .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellants were reflecting the clearance in their relevant RT-12 Returns by claiming the benefit of the Notification, hence the penalty under Section 11AC is not sustainable. The appellants also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in their own case whereby the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. S-31/A-28/KOL/06 dated 17-1-2006 held that the extended period of limitation is not invocable in re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ification and the same were reflected in the RT-12 Returns. This fact is not in dispute. In these circumstances, I find merit in the contention of the appellants that there is no suppression or wilful misstatement or fraud on their part with intent to evade payment of duty. The impugned Order whereby the penalty under Section 11AC of the Act is imposed, is set aside and the appeal is allowed as in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X