Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 420 - AT - Central ExciseSuppression of facts - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Denial of Small Scale Exemption - Whether when the manufacturing units were using the brand name ‘Rider’, ‘Rider Seals’ and ‘Rider Hose’ in respect of the goods manufactured by them, the benefit of Small Scale Notification will still be available to them or not - Clandestine removal of goods - Held that:- during the relevant period, there were decisions of the Tribunal holding that if the brand is being used with a little variance and in respect of different types of goods, the Small Scale Industries Exemption would still be available. The said law was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Trichy Vs. Rukmeni Pakkwell Traders [2004 (2) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] as also in the case of CCE, Chandigarh-I Vs. Mahaan Dairies [2004 (2) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. It becomes clear that during the period relevant for the purposes of the present appeals, the law was in favour of the assesses and was reversed subsequently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As such, the question which arises is as to whether in such a scenario, any mala fide can be attributed to the assessee and whether the extended period of limitation would be available to the Revenue or not. Similarly, in the case of Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2002 (11) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], it was held that when there are divergent views of various High Courts on a legal issue, the mala fide intention cannot be attributed to the assessee so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of in the case of Continental Foundation Joint Venture Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I [2007 (8) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that the expression ‘suppression’ used in proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1994 is required to be construed strictly. When there are various circulars operating at different points of time, leading to scope for entertaining the doubt, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Demand confirmed on the basis of use of brand name against various manufacturing units along with imposition of penalties on various persons, on the said ground is set aside on the point of limitation. The issue of clandestine removal is being remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision - Decided in favour of assessee.
|