9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt but submit that as they were under a bona fide belief that with the death of proprietor of the unit, the manufacturing unit had stopped working, they cleared the goods without payment of duty. It is also their stand that they did not avail any benefit of CENVAT credit or duty paid on the inputs and used in the manufacture of such exempted goods. I find that inasmuch as all the goods were cleare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Excise Tariff and were clearing goods on payment of duty @ 9.6% availing the benefit of Notification NO.9/2003 dated 1.3.2003. They cleared goods worth ₹ 25,40,748/- and discharged appropriate duty during the period April 2003 to June 2003. Due to the sudden demise of Sri M. Sudhakar, the proprietor of the unit in May 2003, the appellants vide letter dated 19.5.2003 informed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ha Eng. Works and cleared goods without payment of duty. The value of goods so cleared during the period July 2003 to May 2004 worked out to ₹ 87,64,673/-. It was also noticed that the appellants at the time of closure of the unit had duty paid inputs lying in the stock valued at ₹ 1,89,250/- which were carried forward and utilized in the manufacture of their finished goods. Hence, a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty confirmation or confirmation of interest and only challenge is for imposition of penalty upon the appellant. He submits that the earlier manufacturer under the name and style of M/s. Sudha Engineering was a proprietary concern and with the death of the proprietor, the same ceased to exist. The appellant was under a bona fide belief that the new manufacturing unit, though under the same name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smuch as all the goods were cleared on paper transactions and all the documents were maintained by the appellant, no malafide can be attributed to them. There could be a bona fide belief on their part that the new unit with a new proprietrix is entitled to fresh exemption. As such I do not consider this to be a case ofmala fide intention and by extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant, set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
