Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2017 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 93 - MADRAS HIGH COURTSSI exemption - use of brand name - The Assessee's claim is that, since, its clearances were, always, below the sum of ₹ 30.00 lakhs, there is no need to register itself with the Central Excise Authorities - Whether the Tribunal is correct in dismissing the cross-objection filed by the appellant raising the question of limitation for the Revenue to make a demand? - Held that: - the limit of exempted clearances, increased, in this period, from ₹ 30.00 lakhs to ₹ 50.00 lakhs. The Assessee, therefore, in our view, was entitled to contend that there was no occasion, for it, to disclose the fact that the subject goods were being cleared under the brand name "Micro", (which was also the brand name used by another family/sister concern), since, it had no occasion to file a classification list. Suppression of facts - there was a non-disclosure of information by the Assessee. The Assessee has taken a stand that, since, it was always below the monetary limit fixed for clearances qua SSI Units, it never had an occasion to make any disclosure via a classification list - Held that: - this cannot be construed as suppression of fact, within the meaning of Section 11A(1) of the 1944 Act. Mere non-disclosure of facts, in such like circumstances, cannot constitute suppression of facts. Given the way the Section is framed, the expression "suppression of fact", appears in the company of words and expressions, such as, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement. Therefore, the expression "suppression of facts", has to take colour from the words whose company, it appears in. A mere non-disclosure of information, when there is no obligation in law to furnish the same, will not amount to, in our opinion, fraud or collusion or even, wilful misstatement and, hence, trigger the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal, in our opinion, wrongly rejected the cross objections filed by the Assessee on the issue of limitation. Since, the extended period of limitation is not applicable, the Revenue would also not be entitled to levy penalty under Section 11AC of the 1944 Act, save and except, demand duty, for a period of of six (6) months, prior to the date of SCN. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
|