TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. (who are not entitled to SSI benefit), the contravention of conditions specified in para 7 of Notification 175/1986 (para 4 of the succeeding notification No. 1/1993) stand established, disentitling the appellant from SSI benefit. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - We find justification in invoking the extended period of time limit inasmuch as the appellant has failed to reveal who is the real owner of Citra brand name. It is only after the investigation undertaken by the department, it has been revealed that the Citra brand is actually owned by M/s. Parle Exports Ltd. who is not entitled to SSI benefit. Consequently, the invocation of extended time limit is fully justified. Coming to the demand for the period June to N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals0, Jaipur. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of aerated water falling under Chapter 22 of the Central Excise Tariff. They filed a classification list effective from 1.4.1992 with the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Udaipur, claiming exemption under small scale industries notification No. 175/1986 dated 1.3.1986 for clearance of aerated waters bearing the brand Citra , The present disputes covers the period 5.4.1992 to 31.5.1992 (Appeal No. E/1828/2007 ) and June, 1993 to November 1993 (Appeal No. E/2359/2007 ). The show cause notice invoking the extended period of limitation in the first case was issued on 16.3.1997 and the second case was issued on 3.1.1994. The Central Excise duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be entitled to Small scale industries exemption benefit. In the alternative plea on limitation, they have cited the case law of Nizam Sugar Factory vs. CCE [2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC)] and submitted that a part of the demand will be hit by bar of limitation in the second show cause notice. They have also submitted that since the facts are known to the department, inasmuch as the classification list has been filed in 1992, which has been approved, the entire demand will be hit by time limitation as the department will not be entitled to demand duty invoking the extended period of limitation. 5. The crux of the issue in the present appeals is use of brand name Citra on the aerated water manufactured by the appellant. The claim of small scale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice has been issued on 3.1.1994, we are of the view that decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra) comes to the help of appellant. In the said decision, the Apex Court has held that once a Show cause notice stand issued, issuance of second show cause notice on the same facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of assessee. In respect of second show cause notice, we find that a portion of demand fall beyond the period of normal time limit as prescribed under section 11A at the relevant time. Consequently, the demand in the second show cause notice beyond the period of six months will be hit by time bar. The original adjudicating authority is directed to requantify the demand by ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
