Appellant's Penalty Set Aside, Duty Demand Upheld. Appeal Allowed in Part. Tribunal Finds No Deliberate Misdeclaration.

The penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside, but the duty demand was upheld. The appeal was allowed in part, with the Tribunal finding that the appellant's actions did not demonstrate deliberate mis-declaration or suppression of facts, similar to a previous case.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge against imposition of penalty and finding of suppression and mis-statement in the case of differential duty demand and penalty imposed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of printed labels and wrappers, started manufacturing printed cartons in the financial year 1983-84 under an exemption notification. The notification provided full exemption up to a certain value of clearances and partial exemption thereafter. The appellant filed a declaration stating that clearances would not exceed a certain value. However, it was later found that the appellant had crossed the exemption limit and started collecting full duty from buyers. The notice alleged suppression and mis-statement, leading to a demand of duty and imposition of penalty, which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority.

The appellant, through its counsel, expressed willingness to pay the demanded duty but challenged the imposition of penalty and the findings of suppression and mis-statement. The show cause notice proposed inclusion of duty collected from buyers in the assessable value, but since the duty demand was confirmed, it was deemed that the duty collected was justified and excluded from the assessable value. The total clearances were found to be marginally above the exemption limit.

The appellant argued that it believed the total clearances would not exceed the limit based on the previous year's low clearances and the newly established factory. The appellant started collecting duty as a precautionary measure when nearing the exemption limit. The Tribunal found that the appellant's actions did not indicate deliberate mis-declaration or suppression of facts, similar to a previous case. Hence, the penalty was set aside, but the duty demand was confirmed.

In conclusion, the penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside, but the duty demand was upheld. The appeal was allowed in part, based on the findings of the Tribunal.

---