2016 (12) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0,464/- respectively. In the year 2002-2003 they claimed exemption under Notification 6/2002-CE dated 01/3/2002 which provided for nil rate of duty for the impugned goods upto clearance of 3,500 M.T. in a year. The said notification was amended on 01/3/2003 where 8% duty was introduced vide Notification 6/2003-CE dated 01/3/2003. The appellants continued to clear goods without payment of duty during the period March 2003. The duty involved on such clearance was Rs. 78,793/-. 2. During 2003-2004, they opted to operate under general SSI exemption Notification 8/2003-CE dated 01/03/2003 and there is no dispute of duty liability for this year. For the year 2004-2005, the appellants again switched over to quantity based exemption under Notifica....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder Notification No. 8/2003-CE and there is no dispute for this period. Substantial demand relates to 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. It is the claim of the appellant that they continued to avail quantity based exemption under Notification No. 6/2003-CE under the mistaken belief that the same is available for the goods for clearance without payment of duty. 3. The learned Counsel emphasized that they have been filing regularly the monthly ER returns indicating clearances with full exemption under Notification 6/2003-CE. The Department did not point out any error. It is his submission that the error has happened on both the sides, namely, by them as the assessees, by the Revenue as the returns were also with them. He submitted that the whole dema....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion which did not mention either the product name or the quantum of clearances eligible for exemption could be bonafidely mis-construed for availing full exemption. As such, we find no merit in the claim for bonafide understanding or mistake on the part of the appellant while switching over from general small scale exemption to quantity based exemption during the year 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. 6. However, having noted the above facts, it is also to be seen that the appellants have been filing due ER-1 returns on regular basis specifically indicating Notification 6/2003-CE and also showing clearances without payment of duty on such clearances to the Department. Even if bonafide mistake on the part of the appellant could not be believed, the....