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

..... 2. The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... any fact with intent to evade payment of duty as 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 ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing the goods by availing the benefit of the Notification 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 impos .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X