TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be applicable is fallacious, inasmuch as, once the suppression is admitted merely because the Department acquires knowledge of the irregularities; the suppression would not be obliterated. - Demand confirmed - Decided against the assessee. - Excise Appeal No. E/980/2008-EX [DB] - Final Order No. 52496/2016 - Dated:- 20-7-2016 - S. K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And R. K. Singh, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. B. L. Narasimhan, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Kanu Verma Kumar, D.R ORDER Per R. K. Singh Appeal has been filed against order in appeal dated 11.02.2008 which upheld the demand of ₹ 4,89,600/- alongwith interest and penalties on the ground that the appellant availed of the benefit of SSI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said Notification that the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption for its (two) factories during the preceding financial year should not have exceeded ₹ 300 Lakhs, and therefore, it cannot be held to be guilty of suppression of facts. It cited the judgment of CESTAT in the case of Nova Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh - 2015 (327) ELT 103 (Tri.-Del.). to assert that when the activities of the appellant were in the knowledge of the Department as both of the units were registered within the same range extended period was not invokable for raising the demand on the ground of clubbing of clearances. 3. Ld. D.R. on the other hand, supported the impugned order add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (d) description of specified goods produced; (e) date from which option under this notification has been exercised; (f) aggregate value of clearances of specified goods (excluding the value of clearances referred to in para 3 of this Notification) till the dater of exercising the option; 6. The ld. Advocate pleaded that what was required to be declared was only aggregate value of clearance of specified goods and beedies (manufactured in the other unit of the appellant) were not specified goods and therefore their value was not included in the aggregate value declared in the declaration submitted in terms of para 2 (ii) of the said Notification and that in such a scenario, the appellant cannot be held guilty of suppression ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its were registered under the same range/ division, and therefore, it was very much in the knowledge of the Department and consequently, the extended period cannot be invoked as has been held by CESTAT in the case of Nova Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), suffice to say that this ground is untenable in the light of the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I vs. Nemicath Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011 T.I.O.L.- 10-SC- AHM-CX In the said judgment the Hon ble Gujarat High Court essentially held that concept of knowledge by the Department is entirely absent in the provisions of Section 11 A if one imports such concept in Sub-Section 1 of Section 11A of the Act or the proviso there-under, it would t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
