TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of organic chemicals falling under Chapter Sub-heading No. 29420090 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the months of April 2014 and May 2014, the Appellant had paid Central Excise duty on the goods manufactured and cleared. However, in the month of June 2014, they surrendered their Central Excise registration and started availing Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption in terms of Notification No. 8/2003-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2003. 2. It was the allegation of the Department that since the appellant had paid duty for the months of April 2014 and May 2014, they were not eligible to avail the value-based SSI exemption for the clearances effected from June 2014 onwards, and that the goods cleared from June 2014 onwards were liable to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilful misstatement on their part, and hence the extended period of limitation was not invocable. v. That in the absence of any intention to evade duty or mala fide conduct, imposition of penalty was unwarranted and waiver of penalty was justified. vi. That since they had not collected Central Excise duty from their customers, they were entitled to the benefit of cum-duty pricing. vii. That the surrender and cancellation of registration had been duly accepted by the Department, indicating a mutual oversight, for which the appellants should not be penalised. 5. After having provided an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and upon due consideration of the facts of the case, the records, and the ground....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithout merit and accordingly rejected the request for waiver of penalty. v. Insofar as the contention relating to bona fide belief, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that no cogent basis or supporting evidence had been furnished to establish the same. Reliance was placed on various Tribunal decisions holding that bona fide belief cannot be equated with blind assumption, as well as on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which held that the plea of bona fide belief, when advanced as a defence for non- payment of duty, is unsustainable in the absence of demonstrable justification. vi. With respect to the allegation of suppression of facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the issue had already been examined by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no suppression or misstatement of facts. They have also contended that the extended period of limitation was not applicable, and that there was no mala fide intention to evade payment of duty. It was further pleaded that when the appellants surrendered their registration with the Central Excise Department, the same was accepted and the registration was duly cancelled by the Department, thereby indicating a mutual oversight, for which the appellants ought not to be penalised. 8. The Ld. Advocate Mr. Ravi Krishnan has argued for the Appellant and the Ld. Authorized Representative Mr. M. Selvakumar has represented the Department and have made their submissions. 9. Heard both sides and perused the documents and evidence available in appe....