TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 847
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfirmed along with interest and penalty vide Order-in-Original dated 25.10.2016 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner Jaipur by denying the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012, as amended. 2. The brief facts as per show cause notice is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Mehandi Cone/Paste and Mehandi Powder. The appellant was clearing the said goods without payment of central excise duty by availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.12. 3. A show cause notice dated 23.06.2014 was issued to the appellant for the period June 2013 to March 2014 proposing to deny the exemption and for recovery of central excise duty of Rs. 30,21,725/- on the ground that the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under notification is very clear with reference to henna paste. The only condition is that the said paste should not have been mixed with any other ingredients. The scope of the said entry was clarified by the Board vide letter dated 10.07.2014. The Board clarified as below:- "Doubts have been raised regarding the scope of the exemption from excise duty available for heena powder or paste under Sl.No.134 of notification 12/2012-Central Excise dated17th March, 2012 in the context of the phrase "not mixed with any other ingredient". It is clarified that the exemption is available to heena powder mixed with a liquid, so far that the liquid is a medium to change the form of heena powder into paste but excludes products like heena dye and such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s adding any chemical in the Henna Powder, while converting it into paste. No sample of the product in question i.e. Henna Powder and Henna Paste, were drawn by the department of the product in question during the relevant period. Further, the SCN also does not rely upon any CRCL test Report. The Ld AR appearing for the revenue accepted this factual position. However, he tries to justify the adjudication order and the impugned order wherein reliance was placed on the CRCL Report dated 29.05.2014, which did not pertain to the period covered in the SCN, but was for the subsequent period, as is clear from the date of the CRCL Report. We are not convinced by the said argument of the Ld AR in view of settled law, as laid down by the Apex Court i....