Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 81 - CESTAT MUMBAIBenefit of the exemption Notification No. 10/2002-CE - manufacture of Solid/Hollow Cement Concrete Blocks falling under Chapter Heading No. 6807.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - density of the solid/hollow concrete blocks - product classified as lightweight or not - whether the appellant is entitled for the exemption notification no. 10/2002-CE dated 1-3-2002? - Held that: - the goods entitle for the exemption is lightweight (solid and hollow) concrete building blocks. However, no specification either as per the Indian standard or otherwise was provided alongwith aforesaid entry in the notification. Considering the submission of the Ld. Counsel on perusal of the sample notification, we find IS specifications are mentioned in the exemption entry - reliance placed on the decision of the case of Cannaught Plaza Restaurant [2012 (12) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that irrespective of any ingredient the classification of the goods has to be preferred as per the name of product known in the market. in the present case irrespective of the specification of the product, it is marketed under the description of lightweight concrete building blocks and buyer is also purchasing the product knowing consciously that it is lightweight concrete building blocks - product represent to description used for the marketing of the goods should be accepted and need not to go to the IS specification particularly for the reason that the entry provided in the exemption notification does not carry any IS specifications. Therefore we hold that appellant is entitle for the exemption notification no. 10/2002-CE dated 1-3-2002(sr. No. 23) Period of limitation - Held that: - The issue is of strict interpretation of the entry given in the notification. In such a case it is settled law that in case of issue involved is of interpretation of law, malafide intention or suppression of fact cannot be alleged therefore the extended period of demand cannot be invoked as provided under proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. In the present case, the period involved is August, 2002 to February, 2003 whereas show cause notice for the demand during such period was issued on 15-12-2004 i.e. after lapse of almost one year and ten months. Moreover, corrigendum to show cause notice was also issued on 11-8-2005. In this fact, we are of the considered view that the demand is clearly time bar as extended period could not have been invoked. The appellant has rightly claimed the exemption notification no. 10/2002-CE, hence the demand is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
|