9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant have claimed exemption under N/N. 10/97 as well as 67/95 in respect of captively consumed goods, it was known to the department that appellant is clearing the final product under exemption N/N. 10/97-CE. Accordingly, it was not prevented to the department to take action immediately after receipt of the classification declaration wherein aforesaid exemption were claimed. Therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Silicon Diodes, Thyristors, SCR/Diode modules, Rectifier stack and silicon rectifier apparatus falling under chapter sub-heading 8541.00 and 8504.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Appellant in their classification declaration claimed the exemption notification No. 10/97-CE dated 1-3-1997 for the goods cleared to various research institute. They ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Shri. Vinay Sejpal, Ld. Counsel for the appellant fairly concede that demand was correctly made as the goods used for captive consumption in the manufacture of exempted goods which was cleared under Notification No.10/97. However, his only prayer is to waive the penalty under Section 11AC and penalty imposed on Shri. Hariharan on the ground that as there was no malafide intention on the part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suppression of facts, they only request for setting aside the penalties. 3. Shri. S.V. Nair, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that since demand is for extended period, penalty under Section 11AC is inevitable. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts on the part of the appellant. Since there is no malafide proved, personal penalty on Shri. Hariharan is also not tanable. As per our above discussion, we are of the considered view THAT penalty under Section 11AC imposed on the appellant and penalty of ₹ 10,000/- imposed on Shri. Hariharan are not sustainable. We therefore set aside the penalties. However, demand of duty and payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
