2017 (2) TMI 1058

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssifiable as handicraft and, therefore, they were exempted under Notification No. 76/1986-CE dated 10.2.1986. Subsequently, appellant s premises was visited by the Central Excise officers on 18.3.2004 and seized the stock of readymade garments valued at Rs. 51,93,000/- under the reasonable belief that the same cannot be categorized as handicrafts. Subsequently it was found that out of total 5035 pieces of salwar, kameez and dupatta, only 1011 pieces were not found handicrafts, therefore, not eligible for exemption under the said Notification. On further investigation, it was found that during the period from 9.3.2004 to 17.3.2004, the appellant had manufactured and cleared 817 pieces of readymade garments for export and 344 pieces of readym....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that an identical issue has been considered by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vira Enterprises vide Order No. A/85089-85091/17/EB dated 01.09.2016. She also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Louis Shoppe  1996 (83) ELT 13 (SC). She further submits that since the Central Excise Registration was surrendered under bona fide belief that their product is covered under exemption Notification No. 76/1986 as handicrafts, therefore, there is no suppression of facts. Therefore, no penalty can be imposed. 3. On the other hand, Shri V.K. Shashtri, learned AC (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the find....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion was done manually. Hence the goods is correctly classifiable as handicrafts. This issue has been considered by this Tribunal also in case of Vira Enterprises (supra), wherein the Tribunal has passed following order: - "4. Heard both Learned Counsel for appellant and Learned Authorised Representative. We observe that the said circular supra does permit some tolerance to the use of machinery in the production of handicrafts . We also notice a total absence of finding in the order of the original authority that the goods are not handicrafts . The first appellate authority has reasoned thus "7. The above competing versions from both the sides have been considered. Appellants manufactured both handicraft and non-handicraft items. For th....