Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (9) TMI 601

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... amount to double jeopardy as in that case, the appellants had claimed exemption under Notification No.8/98 dated 2-6-98 which was in contravention of clause 2(v) of the Notification and the issue therefore is different from the issue in the present case. As the fact of availment of exemption on Alang unit was not declared in Rule 173B declaration of Sihor unit, cannot be made the basis for establishing intention on the part of the appellants in as much as admittedly the fact of existence of Alang unit was mentioned in the said declaration - as the demand in the present case is admittedly beyond the normal period of limitation of six months the appellant s appeal of the Sihor unit was allowed only on the limitation - in favour of assess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for denying them the benefit of SSI exemption. It is his submission that the said case which arose out of the show cause notice reached the Tribunal in appeal No.2904, 2905 2906 of 2001, which was disposed of in favour of the assessee by this Bench vide final order No.A/185-187/WZB/AHD/2006 dated 06.11.06. He would draw our attention specifically to paragraph No.6 wherein Tribunal has allowed the appeal only on limitation. It is his submission that in this case also, the show cause notice is issued in January 2004 for the period 11.02.99 to 30.04.99. It is his submission that the entire issue is hit by the limitation as both the units were falling under the same jurisdictional division and hence there cannot be any suppression of the fac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... suppressed the existence of a second unit from the department to avail benefit of Notification No.9/98-CE dated 2-06-98.I find that even the classification declaration of the Alang unit did not give any indication regarding the existence of the unit at Sihor. Hence the adjudicating authority has correctly invoked the larger period of five year under proviso to Section I 1A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 10. The appellants have contended that the show cause notice for the period 11.02.1999 to 15-07-1999 has already been issued to their Sihor unit, clubbing the clearance of their Sihor unit and the Alang unit hence the show oause notice issued to Alang unit for clubbing the clearance for the same period was a duplication of the same iss .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ared wrongly availing exemption and redemption fine are upheld. However, the redemption fine is reduced to Rs.2,00,000/- only. The show cause notice issued to the Sihor unit for the same period therefore does not amount to double jeopardy as in that case, the appellants had claimed exemption under Notification No.8/98 dated 2-6-98 which was in contravention of clause 2(v) of the Notification and the issue therefore is different from the issue in the present case. 9. We find from the above reproduced paragraphs that there is no dispute to the fact that the appellant had another unit at Sihor and a show cause notice dated 18.02.2000 was issued to said unit. We find strong force of the contentions raised by the ld. consultant that the issu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dly the fact of existence of Alang unit was mentioned in the said declaration. If the appellant was under the bonafide belief that Alang unit is entitled to the exemption, there was no legal requirement on their part to declare the clearances of Alang unit in the declaration of Sihor unit. Reliance by the appellants on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmini Polymers is well placed in as much as in the instant case, no evidence reflecting upon any positive suppression of material facts, with an intent to evade payment of duty can be attributed to the appellants, the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that mere failure to disclose particular facts without any malafide, cannot be made the basis for invocation of longer pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates