9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment. Later on 28th July, 2006 they filed a detailed declaration for availing exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE. Vide letter dated 15/01/2008 certain queries were raised to the appellant that they have not supplied certain information for availing the said exemption (referring to the declaration filed by the appellant dated 28/07/2006). The appellant immediately replied to the said queries thereafter a show cause notice dated 04/11/2008 was issued to the appellant to deny exemption for the period prior to January 2008 on the ground that the appellant has not opted for exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE prior to said date. The Adjudicating Authority hold that as show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e other hand learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. Learned AR objected the contention of the learned Counsel and submits that to avail the benefit of exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE the appellant was required to file necessary declaration and details when they claim initially filed their application for claiming exemption. Admittedly appellant has not done so. Therefore they are not entitled to claim the benefit exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE. He relied on the decisions of Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Eagle Flask Industries Limited vs. CCE, Pune reported in 2004 (171) E.L.T. 296 (S.C.), Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.), Novo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation. By not invoking extended period of limitation it is clear that the appellant has substantially complied the conditions of the notification for availment of exemption. For the impugned period, the learned Commissioner has also observed so which is reproduced here as under :- "4.11 Now I come to the question of limitation, it is very clear from the beginning, at least after the declaration of July 06, that the party was availing of the exemption notification. Not only that, they were filing returns, giving the full description, quantity and clearances of the goods produced by them. There was absolutely no evidence nor any intent to evade payment of excise duty. In fact, the departmental officers should have pointed out at that stage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the delayed payment in terms of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944". 7. As it is the understanding of the Department itself that non-supplying the details of nature of inputs to be used by the appellant prior to January 2008 was not a suppression in that case the denial of benefit of exemption notification shall become fatal to the appellant. Same view has been taken by this Tribunal in the case of Herbal Concepts Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut - I (supra) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:- "7. Now, the question requires to be decided is as to whether the appellants non-filing of option prior to 27/06/2005 can be fatal to their claim of exemption especially when all the particulars stand disclosed by them i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
