Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 976 - AT - Central ExciseInvocation of Extended Period of Limitation - international organization or not - applicability of N/N. 108/95-CE dated 28.08.1905 - mistake, willful misstatement or suppression of material facts or any fraudulent activity or not - Department has opined that the Appellants are not eligible for the exemption as JBSE cannot be considered as an international organization within the scope of the Notification - HELD THAT:- Ld. Sr. Counsel has fairly submitted that they are not arguing the case on merits. However, they are disputing the invocation of extended period for issuance of the show cause notice. It is found that a certificate was given by M/s. MSEB on 23.10.2000 and the same was counter-signed by the Principal Secretary (Energy), Govt. of Maharashtra. The Appellants vide letter dated 14.02.2001 have informed the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner about their intention to avail the benefit of the Notification No.108/95-CE on the strength of the said certificate. The Appellants have started making clearances within one week of the above said letter. The Appellants have cleared their goods during the period 20.02.2001 to 06.10.2001 and they have been filing RT-12 returns regularly. These facts have not been disputed either in the impugned orders or by the Authorized Representative during the course of hearing. We find that though the department was informed as early as February 2001 took note of the ineligibility of the Notification in June 2003 by which the time limit prescribed for issuance of show cause notice for duty not paid not levied as already expired. The department to cover up their inaction immediately after the submission of the said letter by the Appellants have taken recourse to invocation of extended period. We find that this is not legal and proper. No material evidence has been suppressed by the Appellants with intent to evade payment of applicable duty. In fact only in 2003, the Tribunal has decided that said certificates are not valid for availing exemption under Notification No.108/95-CE. This being so, the Appellants cannot be faulted for availing exemption in the bona fide belief that the said certificate issued by the competent authority is valid for availing the exemption. Under these circumstances and the facts of the case and the case law relied upon by the Ld. Sr.Counsel for the Appellants, we find that no case has been made for invocation of extended period. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|