TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n perusal of the records, we find that it was appellant who had approached the Departmental authorities for granting of Central Excise registration on crossing the threshold limit of ₹ 1.5 crores turnover as is envisaged in Notification No.8/2003-CE. We also find from the records that the main appellant had recorded all the manufacturing activities and all clearances in the books of accounts, which is evident from the fact that show cause notice has been issued based upon such records only. On the background of such factual matrix, we agree that the appellant cannot be charged with willful suppression of the fact with intent to evade payment of duty. This our view is due to the fact that the appellant may have mis-read the notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the guise of exempted goods under SSI exemption as envisaged under Notification No.8/2003-CE dt.01.03.2003 as amended without obtaining Central Excise registration and without payment of Central Excise duty during the period from February 2007 to September 2008. The appellants were not entitled to SSI exemption limit of ₹ 1.5 crores as their products were excluded from SSI exemption scheme as per Notification No. 8/2003-CE dt.01.03.2003 as amended and were required to pay Central Excise duty from the very first clearance as per Section 4A of Central Excise Act 1944 i.e. MRP based valuation vide Notification No.14/2008-CE(NT), dt.01.03.2008. However, the appellant failed to pay duty by wrongly availing the exemption under Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation seeking registration. After receipt of such declaration, the departmental authorities subsequently recorded a statement of the partner and held that such product manufactured by the appellant would not get be covered under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. He would submit that the entire case has been made up by the Department after the appellant approached them for registration, hence there is no suppression of facts and more so willful suppression . It is his submission that the appellant had bonafide belief and had always cleared the goods on invoices and recorded the same in the financial records, which is not disputed and Revenue has not brought forward any contrary evidence. He would rely upon the following decisions:- i) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld submit that the bonafide belief as propagated by the ld.Counsel would not mean that they could interpret the law to their understanding without taking sufficient care for support of their interpretation; for this proposition he relied upon the judgment of this Bench in the case of HUDCO 2012 (26) STR 531 (Tri-Ahmd) and also the judgment of co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Winner Systems Vs CCE Pune 2005 (191) ELT 1051 (Tri-Mum) and in the case of Tanzeem Screnarts Vs CCE Mumbai 2006 (196) ELT 209 (Tri-Mum). 7. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 8. The only issue to be decided in this case is whether the confirmation of demand of the duty on the appellant alon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued based upon such records only. On the background of such factual matrix, we agree that the appellant cannot be charged with willful suppression of the fact with intent to evade payment of duty. This our view is due to the fact that the appellant may have mis-read the notification No.8/2003-CE. In our view, the reading of Notification No.8/2003-CE is itself confusing and may be a situation wherein the appellant, as claimed by the ld. Counsel, are not highly literate. 11. In our considered view, the law laid by down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board (supra) would be directly applicable in this case wherein their lordships have clearly settled the law that the extended period can be invoked only when there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
