2018 (10) TMI 1060

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or Appellant Ms. Sneha Ghosh (Advocate) for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa Being aggrieved with that part of the impugned order vide which Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed upon the appellant while dropping a part of the demand and confirming another part, on the ground that there was no mala fide on the part of the assessee, Revenue has filed the present appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessed on the basis of the MRP of Rs. 135.7 per KG. As regards the imposition of the penalty, I find that the department has failed to prove the intent for evasion of the duty, as alleged in the impugned orders. The appellant has cleared the goods on the basis of the invoices. They have been regularly submitting their returns on time. No such irregularity has been mentioned in the impugned order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecumseh Products India Ltd. V/s CCE, 2004 (167) ELT 498 (S.C.), held that in the circumstances where there was bona fide dispute between the parties in regard to the legal interpretation of law, penalty cannot be imposed on appellant. The above referred case laws are applicable in the present case. It is quiet clear that the appellant was under bona-fide belief that the goods, were not liable to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lready discussed in the foregoing paras that the Horlicks cannot be taken for the purpose of deciding the Mrp of the goods. Moreover the department has not given any reason/evidence which can prove that the appellant has undervalued their product. The department has no where alleged that the appellant received any amount over & above the value of the goods shown in the invoices, issued by the appe....