2009 (7) TMI 1013

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 48 of CETA, 1985. The said good attracted Nil rate of duty till 28-2-06 in terms of Sr. No. 13 of Notification No. 10/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-03. With the introduction of Budget effective from 1-3-2006, the said goods attracted duty of 8% ad valorem. However, the appellants continued to avail exemption notification No. 8/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003, which was otherwise not available to them as the aggregate clearance value of excisable goods in the previous year has exceeded Rs. 4 crores. While reckoning the aggregate clearance value, the appellants had not taken into account the value of the goods which attracted Nil rate of duty during the preceding financial year. 3. The appellants were informed by their jurisdictional Central Excise Superi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ial criteria. For the above proposition, he relied upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in case of CCE Vapi v. M/s. Modison as reported in 2006 (203) E.L.T. 521 (Tri.-L.B.), laying down that for invoking Rule 173Q (1), mens rea is not one of the essential ingredients. Accordingly, he observed that inasmuch as Rule 25 is pari materia to Rule 173Q, the ratio of the above decision would apply. However, keeping in view that there was no intention to evade payment of duty, and the entire duty and interest was paid before issuance of show cause notice, he reduced the penalty in one case from Rs. 57,945/- to Rs. 15,000/- and in other case from Rs. 4,31,419/- to Rs. 1 lakh. The appellants have filed appeals for further reduction in the pe....