2016 (11) TMI 406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rma Kumar, D.R. ORDER Per R. K. Singh The demand of duty of Rs. 1,61,129/- representing additional duty of excise on unbranded tobacco for the period March, 2005 to March, 2007 (alongwith interest and mandatory equal penalty) was confirmed alongwith interest and mandatory equal penalty on the ground that the appellant cleared un-manufactured tobacco claiming SSI exemption under Notification No.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... E.R. I return, not paying the impugned duty would amount to deliberate misstatement of facts, if not suppression of facts.   4. We have considered the contention of both sides. As far as the merit of the case is concerned both sides agreed that the impugned additional duty of excise was leviable on the impugned goods under Notification No. 6/05 dated 01.06.2005 However, we find that the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vertent non-payment is to be met within the normal limitation period and the burden is on Revenue to prove allegation of willful mis-statement. The onus is not on the assessee to prove its bonafides. In the case of CCE vs. Chemiphar Drugs Liniments [2002-TIOL-266- SC-CX], the Supreme Court held that something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the assessee or conscious or ....