Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 36 - CESTAT BANGALORESSI Exemption - use of brand name of others - certain clearances of excisable goods chargeable to NIL rate of duty during the period 01.04.2004 to 29.10.2004 - clearance of non-excisable products in terms of N/N. 08/2003 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellants have been availing the exemption notification available for small-scale industries and have been filing intimations as required under Central Excise Rules. We find that they have filed Intimations dated 01.04.2003, 01.04.2004 under Rule 11 (6) and under Rule 173B. They have filed a declaration effective from 01.03.2001 indicating that they will be clearing bread, bun etc. falling under sub-heading 1985.90 of CETA chargeable to NIL rate of duty. There is no ambiguity in the wordings of the Notification. Therefore, there are no reason for the appellants to entertain any doubts regarding the notification. The appellant’s submission that they had a bona fide belief that goods attracted NIL rate of duty was same as non-excisable goods. There is no merit in the argument. The appellant is a regular manufacturer and has been availing the very same benefit for quite some time. In such circumstances, it is difficult to accept that the appellants had a bona fide belief. The appellants have not given any declaration to the effect that they manufacture excisable goods which are chargeable to NIL rate of duty and they consider the same to be non-excisable goods. The only declaration given by the appellants that to with effect from 01.03.2001 is to the effect that they are manufacturing bread, bun etc. falling under CETA 1985.90 and chargeable to NIL rate of duty. It is not understood as to how the Department would be in the knowledge that the appellants are manufacturing same goods in 2004 and would treat them as non-excisable goods. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of the appellants that their unit has been subjected to audit in between. Under the circumstances, the Department had no way to be in the knowledge of the activities of the appellants. Therefore, it can only be concluded that the appellants have suppressed material facts from the Department. In such circumstances, the extended period is rightly invokable. Appeal dismissed.
|