2017 (3) TMI 1143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent Per : Ramesh Nair The appellant is Govt. of India undertaking and they are engaged in the manufacture of readymade garment falling under Chapter 62 and other textile articles falling under Chapter 63. They have got the goods manufactured on the job work basis from the various ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....contended that since the job worker had been manufacturing the product under brand name of the appellant and entire control was of the appellant therefore the appellant is required to pay the duty. Being aggrieved by the Order of the Commissioner(Appeals) appellant is before us. 2. Shri. Prasad Paranjape, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as per the Rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... intention for evasion of duty. The issue involved is related to the interpretation of law an special provisions for manufacturing of textile articles therefore suppression of facts is not involved, hence no penalty under Section 11AC can be imposed. 3. Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in respect of special provisions only in respect of textile articles, we do not find any malafide on the part of the appellant, we therefore set aside penalty imposed under Section 11AC corresponding to the demand of Rs. 67,616/-. As regard the demand in respect of goods of Chapter 63 for the period October, 1999 to March, 2003, we find that demand on raw material supplier on this goods was faste....