2015 (5) TMI 204

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... R Subramaniyan, AC (AR) ORDER Per D N Panda: Ld. consultant submits that there is no dispute as to the goods manufactured by the appellant which is also governed by the Standards of Weights & Measures Act, 1976 and notified under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 for liability of duty thereunder. Apart from clearing the goods in small packs on retail, the appellant was also clearing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n. 3. Appellant was all along under bonafide belief that because of the confusion in the industry the goods were not liable to duty on the bulk pack clearances under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. Such bonafide belief led it to pay duty under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. There was nothing suppression made by the appellant to cause evasion to the Revenue. He relies on the deci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the light of the Board's circular. The circular has ground that there was persisting confusion in industry which has prevented the appellant to bring the goods under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of the fact that there is no whisper in the show cause notice as to malafide of appellant, it would be proper to rely on the decision cited by learned consultant in the case of Ja....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he manufacturer knew that the goods were liable to duty and that he was required to take out a licence. This Court has held that for invoking the extended period of limitation duty should not have been paid, short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded because of either fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of fact or contravention of any provision or rules. This Court has held....