COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. PHILIPS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. S.I. Shah, learned counsel for the appellant- Revenue and Mr. Prakash Shah for the respondent. Perused appeal.

(2.) This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

(3.) Ms. Shah, learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue took us through order of the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority and confirmed by the first appellate authority. She placed reliance on Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in support of her submission. While relying on Rule 57-I, she found it difficult to take her submission to the logical end for want of necessary allegations leading to non filing of the returns within prescribed period by the respondent. She also could not point out any allegation in the show cause notice leading to fraud, wilful mis-statement, collusion or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder with the intention to evade payment of duty on the part of the respondent. She sought to rely upon one sentence appearing in the show cause notice; wherein mis-utilisation of credit on inputs based on suppression of facts is alleged. However, the allegations cannot be read in isolation. They cannot be read bereft of the context in which they were made. In absence of ingredients of rule 57-I, being part of the show cause notice, it is not possible to find out whether there was any suppression of facts by the respondent. Mere bald allegations cannot advance the case of Revenue.