ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. After dispensing with the condition of predeposit of the penalty amount of Rs. 50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand), we take up the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.
2. In the year, 1991, the appellant company entered into a contract with M/s ABM Architects(P) Ltd., Bombay for designing of office lay-out and supervising the interior designing/decoration. Proceedings were in fixated against the Architect for confirmation of the demand of duty in respect of various wooden furniture manufactured by them. The said proceedings resulted in confirmation of demand of duty against the Architect along with the imposition of personal penalty upon the appellant company under the provisions of Section 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. We are informed by the learned Advocate that the Order confirming the demand of duty against the furniture manufacturer, has, not been appealed against and the only challenge in the present appeal is be penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand) imposed upon the appellant company under Rule 209A.
3. The appellant company’s contention duly represented by Dr. Samir Chakraborty is that the contract was entered into in the year, 1991 when the issue as to whether the furniture would be considered as a handicraft so as to be entitle to exemption, was not settled. He submits that the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Louis Shoppe has held that such wooden furniture would be entitled to exemption under Notification No. 76/86-CE. It was only later on, that an appeal was filed by the Revenue against the above decision, and the issue was decided by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Louis Shoppe , laying down that wooden furniture cannot be treated as handicraft within the meaning of Notification. As such, he submits that the appellant company cannot be held guilty of contravention of the provisions of law so as to attract the penal provisions of Rule 209A against them. In fact, the Honourable Supreme Court in that judgement has observed that the above view was being taken by the Tribunal right from 1989 and the cases concerned cannot be reopened in view of the principle now being laid down- by the Honourable Supreme Court. Reference has also been made to various other decisions laying down that bona fide belief taken on the basis of Tribunal’s decision will not result in imposition of any penalty.
4. After hearing the learned J.D.R. for the Revenue, we find that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal was holding a particular view which was in favour of the assessee. In such a scenario, the imposition of any penalty upon the appellant company herein is not called for. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy v. Grasim Industries Ltd. has observed that when the Tribunal has taken a particular interpretation in a number of cases, it cannot be said that the assessee could not have taken that view. Accordingly, the penalty was set aside in that case. In the instant case also, we find that the contract is entered into in 1991 and the law was declared by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Lousie Shoppe in the year, 1995.
4.1. In view of the above, we find no justification for imposition of penalty upon the appellant company. The same is accordingly set aside and the appeal allowed. Stay Petition also gets disposed of
Pronounced in the open court.