TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the adjudicating authority invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Act - Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed - Decided against of assesee. - 260 (Tax) of 2004 - - - Dated:- 7-10-2010 - Yatindra Singh and Rajes Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri A.P. Mathur, Counsel, for the Petitioner. Shri S.P. Kesharwani, Standing Counsel, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 260 (Tax) of 2004 challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 29-9-2003 [2004 (163) E.L.T. 79 (Tribunal)]. Subsequently, against the same order of the Tribunal an appeal, Central Excise (Defective) No. 135 of 2004, has been filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act (the Act). The certified copy of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, no Excise Duty has been paid on Caton, Catcough and Utcrolon, which were Ayurvedic medicines. 5. The adjudicating authority issued show-cause notices dated 17-9-1999 and 5-10-2000 relating to the period from 1-4-1994 to 31-3-1999 and from 1994-95 to 1998-99 respectively invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Act raising the demand of Excise Duty on such Ayurvedic medicines. 6. The appellant filed reply. In the reply it was claimed that, being S.S.I. Unit, it was entitled for the benefit of exemption under the Notification No. 1/93 dated 28-2-1993 upto the turnover of Rs. 30 lacs. It was also contended that the proviso to Section 11-A was not applicable in the present case. 7. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They have been rather representing that the goods manufactured by them are only animal feed supplements. It was the duty to disclose honestly the true nature of the goods manufactured by them. Having kept concealed those facts they had been rightly charged with the allegation of suppression of the correct facts from the Department and, as such, the extended period of limitation has been correctly invoked against them. 11. Heard Sri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri S.P. Kesharwani, learned Standing Counsel. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was manufacturing animal feed supplements and also started manufacturing of Ayurvedic Medicaments. The manufacturing of Ayurvedic Medicamen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
