Revenue-neutral exemption claim defeats duty demand, and bona fide reliance on a concessional regime blocks penalty.

Notification-based exemption was held available where the earlier concessional notification had ceased to operate, and the appellant's credit position was found to be revenue neutral because the credit was either utilised for duty payment or reversed. On that basis, the demand of differential duty and interest was not sustainable. Penalty was also found unwarranted because the lapse was treated as a bona fide mistake arising from continued reliance on the earlier concessional regime, so the penal consequence was set aside. The impugned order was accordingly set aside and relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 8/03-CE dated 1.3.2003 after Notification No. 9/03-CE dated 1.3.2003 had been rescinded, and whether the demand of differential duty and interest could be sustained. (ii) Whether penalty was leviable under the facts and circumstances of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 8/03-CE dated 1.3.2003 after Notification No. 9/03-CE dated 1.3.2003 had been rescinded, and whether the demand of differential duty and interest could be sustained.

Analysis: The appellant had continued to pay duty under the rescinded concessional notification while availing credit. The majority held that, once the later notification ceased to operate, the relevant question was whether the alternative exemption under Notification No. 8/03-CE could be examined. It was found that the notification provided an option to avail exemption, and in the facts of the case the credit availed had either been utilized for duty payment or reversed, resulting in no net benefit to the appellant. On that basis, the situation was treated as revenue neutral and the assessee was held entitled to the exemption.

Conclusion: The demand of duty and interest was not sustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was leviable under the facts and circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The majority treated the lapse as a bona fide mistake arising from continued reliance on the earlier concessional regime and found no justification for penal consequences in the circumstances.

Conclusion: Penalty was not leviable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief. The majority decision accepted the alternate exemption claim and declined to sustain the penal consequence.

---