Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2011 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (6) TMI 685 - AT - Central ExciseDuty demand - Redemption fine - SSI exemption under Notification No. 176/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 - Suppression of facts - Extended period of limitation - Held that:- exemption notification are to be complied with strictly and the substantial compliance means the actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute. Therefore as contended by the appellants that they have substantially complied with the conditions of the exemption Notification is not acceptable and the appellants are required to comply with the conditions of exemption notification strictly. Whether the Assistant Collector have the power to issue show cause notice or not for which we have to go through Section 11A of the Act which was enforced at the time of issuance of the show cause notice - Held that:- As per Section 11A, the Central Excise officer was empowered to issue show cause notice - There is no merit in the contention of the learned Advocate that the Assistant Collector was not having any power to issue show cause notice. Whether the show cause notice can be issued under Rule 10 or Rule 10A which were omitted w.e.f. 6-8-1977 and new Rule 10 was enforced from 6-8-1977 to 16-11-1980 - Held that:- The show cause notice was issued on 2-6-1981. By invoking the provisions of Section 38A, the revenue has power to issue show cause notice under Rule 10/10A during the relevant period. Appellants were claiming the SSI exemption under Notification No. 176/77-Central Excise, dated 18-6-1977 on the ground that the parts and accessories of motor vehicles were supplied to M/s. Ideal Jawa (I) Ltd., and M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., for further use in the manufacture of two wheelers, subject to Chapter X Procedure, value of these goods had to be excluded for the purpose of allowing exemption under Notification No. 89/79-C.E., dated 1-3-1979, 167/79-C.E., dated 19-4-1979 as amended by Notification No. 187/79-C.E., dated 10-5-1979. If the value of exempted goods is excluded duty liability would come down to be marginal. Therefore, the appellants were under an Impression/bona fide belief that they have complied with the conditions of the exemption notification substantially by obtaining certificates from M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. and Ideal Jawa (I) Ltd., the exemption is available to them. Therefore, in the absence of any of the ingredients of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts and contravention of provisions of Central Excise law with an intent to evade duty, the extended period of limitation is not invokable. Therefore, we hold that in this case the extended period of limitation is not invocable. Therefore, the demands for the period 18-6-1977 to 31-10-1980 are barred by limitation - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
|