TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellant Firm were under the same proprietorship of and were availing exemption under either Notification No. 8/2002 or 9/2002 - facts came to the knowledge of the Department on scrutinizing their records. Therefore, the lower authorities have rightly invoked the extended period of limitation - demands are confirmed - E/495-497/2006 - A/256-258/KOL/2011 - Dated:- 13-9-2011 - S/Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Ashok Jindal, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri K.P. Dey, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S. Mishra, Addl. Commissioner, for the Respondent. [Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. These Appeals are filed by the Appellants against confirmation of demands along with interest and equivalent amounts of penalties imposed under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can simultaneously avail only either exemption Notification No. 9/2002 or 9/2003 by clubbing the aggregate assessable value of both the Units. Accordingly, show cause notices were issued, as these facts were suppressed by the Appellants from the Department, although they were filing their declarations under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 from time to time, along with Central Excise returns etc. Therefore, for contravention of the provisions of law, not paying the duty, the show cause notices issued were adjudicated and the demands were confirmed by both the lower authorities along with the interests and equivalent amounts of penalties. Aggrieved by the Impugned Orders, the Appellants are in appeal before us. 2. Learned Advoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the knowledge of the Department that they were having two factories in two different Divisions under the same proprietorship and availing exemption under two separate Notification Nos. 8/2002 and 9/2002, therefore the Adjudicating Authority has rightly invoked the extended period of limitation, as these discrepancies were found at the time of scrutinizing their records. 4. Heard both sides. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by both sides and we find that the Condition No. 2(iv) of the Notification No. 8/2002 clearly stipulates that where a manufacturer clears the specified goods from one or more factories, the exemption in that case shall apply to the aggregate value of the clearances mentioned against each o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pra) is also not applicable to the facts of this case, as in that case, the facts were already in the knowledge of the Revenue, whereas the same did not happen in this case. 8. In view of the above observations, we do not find any merits in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants. Therefore, the demands are confirmed. We further observe that both the lower authorities have not given an option as per the provisos 1 2 to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to pay duty, interest and reduced penalty i.e. 25% of the duty within 30 days. Therefore, as held by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of K.P. Pouches v. Union of India reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 31 (Del.), we give an option to the Appellants to pay d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
