Bona fide tariff classification dispute prevents penalty where the assessee's view is merely found incorrect.

Penalty was held unwarranted where the dispute concerned only the correct tariff classification of medicaments under competing sub-headings. The Tribunal treated the matter as a bona fide difference of opinion on classification, not as suppression of facts or culpable misstatement. On that basis, the assessee's unsuccessful classification claim did not, by itself, attract penalty, and the deletion of penalty was sustained while the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty was exigible where the dispute related only to classification of medicaments under competing tariff sub-headings.

Analysis: The classification controversy was held to be a genuine dispute on the correct tariff entry. In such a case, the mere fact that the assessee's classification was ultimately not accepted does not, by itself, justify penalty. The Tribunal treated the matter as one of difference of opinion on classification rather than suppression or culpable misstatement.

Conclusion: Penalty was not sustainable in a bona fide classification dispute and the Revenue's challenge to the deletion of penalty failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order deleting penalty was upheld, and the Revenue's appeals were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In a bona fide dispute regarding classification of goods, penalty is not warranted merely because the assessee's classification is found to be incorrect.

---