9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anded chewing tobacco as they have filed necessary declaration for the purpose of availing the Notification No. 8/2003 - Further, we find that the appellant has been seeking clarification from the department regarding applicability of new levy. Further, on the basis of clarification given during the visit of the officers, they immediately took the registration and paid up dues as per the effective rate of duty applying the notification 6/2005. The Notification No. 6/2005 does not contain any condition that the benefit under the said Notification is available only to a registered unit. - we set aside the demand of duty in excess of the duty payable and paid in terms of Notification No. 6/05 - E/611-612/2009 - 333-334/2009-EX(PB) - Dated: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it under Notification No. 6/05. The original authority held that the appellants were not registered during the relevant period and that they have not claimed the exemption under Notification No. 6/2005, and, therefore, they are not eligible to the benefit of the same notification and accordingly, confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 13,54,780/- (including an amount already deposited) along with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs. 13,54,780/-. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on Shri S.K. Gutpa, proprietor of the appellant firm. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that they were under a bona fide belief that as small scale unit availing the benefit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation given during the visit of the officers, they immediately took the registration and paid up dues as per the effective rate of duty applying the notification 6/2005. The Notification No. 6/2005 does not contain any condition that the benefit under the said Notification is available only to a registered unit. Reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme Court is misplaced as the facts of the present case are entirely different. 6. In the light of the above, we set aside the demand of duty in excess of the duty payable and paid in terms of Notification No. 6/05. Penalty imposed on the appellant firm and also separate penalty on the proprietor of the appellant firm are not at all justified. We, accordingly, set aside the same. 7. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
