COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JSR Vs. TISCO LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVENUES sole grievance in this Appeal is that the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, has failed to impose penalty on the Respondent merely appreciating that Respondent had deposited Central Excise duty before issuance of show -cause notice.

(2.) APPELLANT -Revenue submitted that penalty should have been imposed in view of the following decisions :

(3.) SHRI D. K. Dhar, ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that only for difference in understanding of the valuation of the goods due to different costing methods, duty demand arose. There was no mala fide intention at all to evade revenue. Respondent followed IBM system of costing (subsequently followed as SAP system). However, in view of changed method of costing itself, differential duty was paid relating to the period April, 2000 to March, 2001. As soon as differential duty was calculated, that was deposited by the Respondent. There was no mala fides nor there was any deliberate defiance of law. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions :