Sona Printers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that duty demand on Student Almanac and teacher planner is uphold, however, extended period of limitation is not invocable since there was no evidence of intention to evade payment of duty and suppression of facts.
Facts- The issue in dispute is regarding the classification of goods namely Student Almanac and teacher planner, Diaries, Workbook, Calendars, Note-Pads and Scrap books. The appellant printed these goods and removed them at nil rate of duty classifying them under Chapter 49 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which Chapter covers printed books, newspapers, pictures and other products of printing industry.
The case of the Department is that these goods fall under Chapter 48 as ―Articles of Paper or of Paper Board and attract duty @ 12.5% ad valorem. It is also the case of the department that the assessee had wrongly not paid duty and, therefore, the extended period of limitation was invokable and that Shri Kishore Mittal, the Director of the assessee was liable to penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Conclusion- Held that we agree with the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order that there was no evidence of intention to evade payment of duty and suppression of facts because it was possible for the assessee to have entertained the belief that the Student Almanac and teacher planner were not exigible to duty and, therefore, to have NOT declared them in their excise returns. Thus, we find that the question of limitation in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the impugned order needs to be upheld in so far as this limitation is concerned. Consequently, we find that the penalty under section 11AC was also correctly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order.
