TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar T.R., C.A. , for the Appellant. Shri U. Raja Ram, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal filed by M/s. Personality Ltd., Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore. The impugned order sustained the order of the Original Authority. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are manufacturers of ready made garments made of knitted or crocheted textile fabrics. The charge found against the appellants is that during the period 26-9-2002 to 5-1-2003, the appellants had cleared its finished goods wrongly availing benefit of Notification No. 15/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horities to give an impression that the suppliers of the fabric to the assessee had been enjoying exemption under Notification 15/2002. Revenue had not produced any evidence to show that the knitted or crocheted fabrics the assessee had used to manufacture the impugned articles of apparel during the material period had not suffered duty. The Original Authority had presumed to conclude that the assessee had accepted that duty was not paid on the fabrics received by it to manufacture the impugned goods. It was for the department to prove that the impugned goods were not eligible for the exemption availed for the reason that the inputs had not suffered appropriate duty of excise. The notification contained an explanation to the effect that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h an intention to evade payment of duty, thereby rendering the extended time limit laid down in proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act invokable in the case." 2.1His findings to justify invocation of extended period is that the assessee had not declared in their RT-12 /ER-1 returns or by any other communication that it had not paid duty on fabrics which information was essentially required by the Department. The department noticed that the impugned goods manufactured and cleared by the appellants were not entitled to exemption as per the notification. He also observed that in the Nizam Sugar Factory case [1999 (114) E.L.T. 429 (Tri.-LB)], the Larger Bench of the Tribunal had held that knowledge of the Department of a fact had no relevance t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
