https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342814 A claimant seeking exemption under Notification No. 76/86-C.E. had to prove that the very readymade garments in dispute were handicrafts. The Tribunal found that certificates from the Development Commissioner did not relate to the impugned goods, the assessee did not get the goods examined before clearance despite opportunity, and no reliable evidence established that the goods answered the handicraft description. The duty demand was therefore sustained. On penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the dispute was interpretational and the assessee's conduct was held to be based on bona fide belief, so the penalty was set aside. en-us Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 May 2017 11:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342814 A claimant seeking exemption under Notification No. 76/86-C.E. had to prove that the very readymade garments in dispute were handicrafts. The Tribunal found that certificates from the Development Commissioner did not relate to the impugned goods, the assessee did not get the goods examined before clearance despite opportunity, and no reliable evidence established that the goods answered the handicraft description. The duty demand was therefore sustained. On penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the dispute was interpretational and the assessee's conduct was held to be based on bona fide belief, so the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342814