Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta vs C.C.E., Delhi-Ii on 25 February, 2016
5.?In this case, there is no demand made from the appellant. In the show cause notice, the only allegation is that the appellants are not maintaining proper record of their production and, therefore, they are liable for penal action under Rule 173Q and Rule 209 of Central Excise Rules. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the appellants were working under small-scale exemption notification and it is not the case of the Revenue that by adding the value of the unaccounted goods, the appellant cross the value of clearance prescribed under the small-scale exemption notification. The appellant also relied upon the decision in the case of Dayal Industries v. CCE reported in 2006 (199) E.L.T. 237. The Tribunal in this case held that for small scale exemption, records or production and clearance not required to be maintained, therefore, is not liable for penalty. In view of the fact that in the present case, it is not the case of the Revenue the appellant cross the limit provided under the notification and no demand has been made. Therefore, in view of the above decision, the imposition of penalty and redemption fine is set aside, the appeal is allowed.
The ratio of the above CESTAT judgement is squarely applicable to the present case.