SHREE SATPUDA TAPI PARISAR SSK LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the case was called, none appeared for the appellant in spite of notice. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up for disposal in absence of appellant. The appellant filed this appeal against the order -in -original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad. The Collector of Central Excise in the impugned order confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,04,192/ - and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/ - under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.

(2.) LD . DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that when the classification list was approved without the benefit of exemption notification, the appellant should have cleared the goods on payment of duty as per the approved classification list. He, further, submits that in spite of denial of exemption, appellant did not pay any duty. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be rejected.

(3.) I would only like to add before parting that the appellants had pleaded that they had a bona fide belief that the activity of stone crushing did not amount to manufacture and if not that they were eligible for exemption under notification 179/85. As such the clearance cannot be construed as clandestine removal with intent to evade payment of duty. It is however, not possible for us to enter into this arena at this stage because according to their own admission the applicants had obtained Central Excise Licence under Rule 174 and filed a classification list describing their product and claiming classification under 2505.00 along with exemption under Notfn. 179/85 as amended. This by itself shows that they believed that the product was excisable (and not that it was not excisable).