Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Loha Udyog Versus C.C.E., Raipur

2016 (7) TMI 1204 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

SSI exemption - extended period of limitation - eligibility to avail benefit of Notification No.9/03-CE dated 01.03.2003 - the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption from its two units during 2003-04 had exceeded ₹ 300 Lakhs. - Held that:- if it is not open to the superior court to either add or substitute words in a statute, such right cannot be available to a statutory Tribunal - The reasoning that once knowledge has been acquired by the Department, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 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 exemption Notification No.9/03-CE dated 01.03.2003 although the clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption during the preceding fina .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

barred inasmuch as, the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period of one year and there was no misstatement or suppression of facts as is evident from the fact that (i) the appellant had submitted a declaration in terms of para 2 (ii) of the said Notification which only required, interalia, the declaration of value of clearances of specified goods and the goods (beedies) manufactured by one of its units, were not specified goods and therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ancial 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 grou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s of the appellant during the period 2003-04 exceeded ₹ 300 Lakhs, it was not eligible for the benefit of Notification No.9/2003-CE as the said Notification clearly, interalia, stipulates that the exemption contained therein shall not be available, if the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption from one or more factories by a manufacturer exceeded ₹ 300 Lakhs in the preceding financial year (Paragraph 2 (vi) of the Notification refers). Thus, as far .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ies; (c) description of inputs used in manufacture of specified goods; (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 (manu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is, therefore, obvious that it was aware of the contents of the said Notification. The fact that it did submit the declaration as per para 2 (ii) of the said Notification further establishes that the appellant had read the Notification. It can be nobody s case that the appellant read the Notification only up to para 2 (ii) and did not read para 2 (vi) of the Notification. Thus, the contention that there is nothing to show that the appellant was aware of condition No.2 (vi) is preposterous. As pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the show cause notice that while claiming the said exemption and filing Central Excise ER-I returns, it suppressed the fact of clearances of excisable goods for home consumption by its other unit with a view to evade central excise duty is clearly sustainable. Regarding the contention that both the units 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 CES .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version