9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication – Held that:- Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty firstly, since assessee opted not to avail the benefit of the notification after obtaining permission from the excise authorities hence no violation of conditions. Secondly, there was no intention of evading tax, in fact assessee cleared the goods on full payment of duty. Thirdly, during the period from 3.3.2000 to 24.2.2001, tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o duty is demanded in the show cause notice does not amount to duty dropped on any account? 2 In the present case the assessee had cleared the excisable goods during the period from 3rd March, 2000 to 24th February, 2001 by availing the concessional rate of duty under Notification No.9 of 99-CE dated 28th February, 1999. Within few months of availing the concessional duty the assessee chose not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty by relying upon a Judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Godrej Soaps Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai 2004 (174) ELT 25. Challenging the aforesaid order of the CESTAT, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 4 The argument of the Revenue is that in the present case, the decision of the assessee not to avail the benefit of the notification before the end of the financia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, it is not the case of the revenue, that the assessee intended to evade payment of duty, because by opting out, the assessee has cleared the goods on full payment of duty. Thirdly, during the period from 3.3.2000 to 24.2.2001, though the assessee has cleared the goods by availing concessional duty under notification No.9 of 1999, differential duty has not been demanded from the assessee. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
