9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 could be invoked in the case of the respondent as there was no suppression and the respondent was under the bona fide belief that he has satisfied the conditions prescribed in the Notification No. 41/99-C.E., dated 26-11-1999." 2. The issue concerns the period between April 2000 and February 2005. The excise exemption was covered by three notifications bearing No. 41/99-C.E., dated 26-11-1999, 13/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 and 42/2003-C.E., dated 14-5-2003. The respondent availed the Central Excise exemption based on the above notifications. As per the above notifications the manufacturer of tea, who cleared such manufactured tax from a 'bought leaf' factory during any financial year subsequent to 1999-2000 was exempted from the whol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, by such person or his agent, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect and the period of limitation would be five years. 6. In the case on hand, on 28-3-2006, the appellant issued a show cause notice to the respondent alleging that the purchase effected by the respondent was from persons, who were holding lands in excess of 10 hectares and therefore, they were not entitled for the benefit granted under the above stated three notifications. Based on the show cause notice, it is stated that the respondent also paid the excise duty. Further, the respondent approached the Commissioner of Central Excise seeki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion was wilful, the appellant was entitled for the extended period of limitation provided under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act. 9. As against the above submission, Mr. Jaikumar, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the same cannot be construed as 'wilful suppression', inasmuch as the respondents produced certificates issued by the Tea Board in respect of the land holdings of its suppliers apart from the Village Administrative Officer's certificate as well as self declaration of land owners themselves and that the appellant cannot expect the respondent to indulge in any other extraordinary exercise of finding out other document pertaining to the land owners and its suppliers. The learned counsel would conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant did not ask for any such further proof as regards the land holdings of the suppliers. When the respondent furnished those particulars which were based on the certificate issued by the statutory body viz., Tea Board, it is quite understandable that one can rely upon such a document issued by an independent statutory body to support the claim of the land owners about the extent of their land holdings. 12. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that there was a erroneous or bogus or fraudulent claim made by the respondent while seeking for exemption. It cannot also be held that there was wilful suppression in order to hold that the appellant was entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation as provided under the proviso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
