2017 (1) TMI 429

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e could have entertained a bonafide belief that they are eligible for SSI benefit. In view of this and as the issue is of interpretation we find that the penalty imposed on appellant is unwarranted. Accordingly, the penalty of ₹ 25,000/- is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/1491/05 and E/1484/05 - ORDER No.M/88766/16/EB and A/88767-88768/16/EB - Date .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to be enhanced in their appeal is less than Rupees Ten lakhs. On perusal of records we find it so. In view of the new litigation policy of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, the miscellaneous application No. E/MA(Ors)92413/16 is allowed and appeal No. E/1491/05 as filed by Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. As regards appeal No. E/1484/05 filed by the assessee a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... demand of ₹ 70,462/- is confirmed with liability to pay interest under Section 11AA of Central Excise Act, 1944 till the payment of differential duty. 6.2 As regards the penalty under Rule 173Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, we find the issue is of use of Brand name on the products and the benefits of SSI, was agitated before the higher forums. We are of the view that appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X