2012 (6) TMI 528

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cartons and catch covers falling under Tariff Item No. 4819 20 90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and they have been availing Small Scale Exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003 as amended. During the period April 2004 to October 2004 and April 2008 to August 2008, the appellants manufactured and cleared printed cartons and catch covers bearing the brand names of the customers availing exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE as amended. As per para 4 of the said Notification, goods affixed with the brand name or trade name of another person excepting those covered under para 4 (a) to 4 (d) were not entitled for the benefit of the said exemption. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 2.7.2009 was issued demanding .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... catch covers bearing brand name/trade name of another person for the impugned period amounting to Rs.2,79,811/- and also imposed an equivalent penalty under Section 11AC apart from confirming interest on the duty demand. The appellants preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority, who, vide the impugned order, dismissed their appeal. Hence the appellants are before us. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the printed catch covers are also in the nature of printed cartons and the same is also includible under the same heading as printed cartons and therefore, the benefit of Section 11C notification should be granted to printed catch covers also. The learned counsel also argues that the Show Cause Notice is gros .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er person was eligible for exemption under the aforesaid notification. Therefore, in the case under consideration in respect of printed catch covers also, the same belief could have been entertained bona fide. Therefore, we are of the view that the extended period of time could not have been invoked in the instant case for confirming the duty demand. Since the duty amount pertains to normal period of limitation is only about Rs 9000/-, we direct the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rupees Nine thousand only within four weeks and report compliance on 27.4.2012. On such compliance, pre-deposit of balance of dues adjudged shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal. (Operative portion pronounced in Court .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X