9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... machinery for cutting and rolling of tea falling under Tariff Heading 8438 8040. The above machinery is exempted vide Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 (Sl. No.10). The appellants were availing exemption on the goods from March 2006 onwards. However, for an interim period from 1.5.2009 to 26.2.2010, there was no exemption available to the goods. The appellant continued to clear the goods availing the exemption. Hence show cause notice was issued proposing to demand duty of Rs. 5,44,260/- along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In appeal, Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duce the purchase invoices as well as the invoices and establish that the goods were not manufactured but were only traded. 3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nanda Kumar supported the findings in the impugned order. He adverted to Notification 12/2010 dated 27.2.2010 and stated that it is specifically provided in the said notification that the exemption extended will not apply to the date prior to 27.2.2010 and after 31.3.2011. Therefore, the appellants are not eligible for the goods cleared for the period 1.5.2009 to 26.2.2010. The contention of the appellant that they have not manufactured the goods is only an afterthought. When the show cause notice has been issued they had cleared the goods by availing the exemption. In such case, they cannot then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d period of 1.5.2009 to 26.2.2010 had engaged in manufacture of the goods. It is also to be remembered that for the period prior and after, the appellant have availed the exemption as per the notification contending that they are manufacturing the impugned goods. We therefore do not find any ground to interfere with the demand. Taking into consideration the facts put forward by the appellant, we consider that the penalty imposed under Rule 25 is unwarranted and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. The impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the penalty imposed under Rule 25 only. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms with consequential relief, if any. ( Operative portion of the order was pronounced in o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
