9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1036X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed - Held that: - the identical issue was decided in favor of the assessee in the case of Salvi Chemicals Industries v. CCE [2005 (1) TMI 432 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], where it was held that the assessee opted for the exemption benefit and the payment at normal rate for a limited period in respect of one of the product was an error on the part of the appellant and not their option - benefit of exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on during 2007-2008 and made a declaration before the authority as on 6-4-2007 to avail the benefit of SSI exemption for payment of Central Excise duty in terms of Notification No. 8/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 and filed the ER-I return declaring clearances nil rate of duty. However, during the period under consideration by mistake on the invoices, the excise duty were charged. When the mistake was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roducts, it can be safely concluded that the assessee opted for the exemption benefit and the payment at normal rate for a limited period in respect of one of the product was an error on the part of the appellant and not their option. In view of this, we find that the order of the original adjudicating authority is just and proper and requires to be restored. Accordingly we set aside the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
