Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1140 - AT - Central ExciseEligibility for the Notification No. 62/95-C.E - suppression of relevant facts - non supply of goods shown trading of - bogus purchase of components for boxes from various traders - Held that:- There was no response from the Department informing the appellant that they are not eligible for the Notification No. 62/95-C.E. On the contrary, from para 52 of the order-in-original passed by the Joint Commissioner, it is seen that another manufacturer M/s. Jai Forging and Stamping (P) Ltd., located in the same industrial area and falling under the same division was also manufacturing same goods for supply to Defence and in his case the benefit of exemption Notification No. 62/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 had been extended. Thus, from this it is clear that during the period of dispute, the Department were of the view that the private manufacturers manufacturing ammunition boxes and supplying to Defence are covered by Serial No. 16 of the Notification No. 62/95-C.E. and such supplies are fully exempt from duty. This is also clear from Superintendent (Technical)’s letter dated 27-8-2001 to the Jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise. In view of these facts, the Department cannot allege that the appellant have suppressed the relevant facts from the Department. As regards, the allegation that the appellant during 2002-2003 had shown trading of goods worth about ₹ 33 lakhs and on inquiry, it was found that the persons from whom they claim to have produced those goods have not supplied, it is seen that the goods which are claimed to have been purchased from M/s. PH Steel, M/s. Jay Gee Steels, M/s. S.N. Traders and M/s. Ranji Products are the complete sets of components for boxes and the components of boxes like M.S. Brackets etc. The dispute in this case is in respect of the ammunition boxes manufactured by the appellant supplied to Ordnance factories of the Ministry of Defence in respect of which the appellant had informed the Department that they are availing of SSI exemption to the extent available and they would be availing the Notification No. 62/95-C.E. It is, therefore, not understood as to how the allegation that the appellant showed bogus purchase of components for boxes from various traders is relevant. - Decided in favour of assessee
|