9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notification number they are claiming exemption, burden of proof cast on the Revenue to ask the appellant under which notification they are claiming exemption. Without doing this effort and without scrutinizing ER-1 return, the investigation was conducted. Therefore, suppression cannot be alleged in these circumstances. Furthermore, as the appellant paid duty along with interest on pointing out by the department, show cause notice was not required to be issued as per Section 11A(2B) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Board’s Circular No. 137/167/2006-CX-04, dated 3-10-2006. Consequently, the penalty is not imposable on the appellant. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/59301/2013-EX(SM) - Final Order No. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority considering the facts that on pointing out by the department, the appellant has paid duty along with interest. Therefore, as per provisions of Section 11A(2B) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Board s Circular No. 137/167/2006-CX-04, dated 3-10-2006, the show cause notice was not required to be issued. In the circumstances, penalties were dropped. 3. The Revenue appealed against the order dropping of penalty by the adjudicating authority before the Commissioner (Appeals) who accepted their appeal and imposed penalty on the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before me. 4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant were clearing the goods on the strengt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearance against EPCG licence. But it is admitted fact that the appellant has not disclosed that under which notification they are claiming exemption and were not paying duty. As the appellant is filing ER-1 return regularly showing clearance against EPCG licence and not disclosed that under which notification number they are claiming exemption, burden of proof cast on the Revenue to ask the appellant under which notification they are claiming exemption. Without doing this effort and without scrutinizing ER-1 return, the investigation was conducted. Therefore, suppression cannot be alleged in these circumstances. Furthermore, as the appellant paid duty along with interest on pointing out by the department, show cause notice was not requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
