Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

ACWA Automatics (Unit-I) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Banagalore-II

2017 (1) TMI 752 - CESTAT BANGALORE

SSI exemption - export turnover not included in value of clearances - suppression of facts - time limitation - Held that: - the entire demand is time-barred. The period of dispute in the case is from July 2004 to December 2004 and the show-cause notice was issued in March 2007 which is much after the expiry of the period of limitation of one year. Moreover in the show-cause notice, extended period of limitation has not been invoked and there are no reasons given in the show-cause notice for invo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm and engaged in the manufacture of articles of Steel, Nuts and Screws of brass falling under Chapter 73 and 74 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. During the year 2004-2005, th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,640/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Forty only) along with interest and also proposed penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant refuted the allegation in the show-cause notice by submitting that SSI Exemption applies only to clearances made to home consumption and not for export. Exports turnover are excluded under the SSI Exemption Notification. The appellant denied the suppression of fact by stating that the Depart .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appeal and upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is rendered in disregard of the binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that the entire demand itself is time-barred as the export took place between the period July 2004 to December 2004 and its clearances .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Apex Court has held as follows: "...We have already mentioned that there was nothing in the show-cause notice dated February 7, 1983 to indicate that the conditions prescribed in the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act for invoking the extended period of limitation were present. In the circumstances, it must be held that the proceedings initiated against the respondent on the basis of the show-cause notice dated February 19, 1983 relating to payment of duty on single yarn 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

g itself about the proof of export. He further submitted that the Appellate Commissioner has failed to enter finding as to how the export value is includible in the first clearances of ₹ 100 lakhs if the exports are effected on payment of duty under rebate claim. In support of his claim, the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: (i) U.V. Laboratories Vs. CCE, Thane-II 2012 (276) E.L.T. 266 (Tri.-Mumbai) (ii) S.V. Mestry Engg. Works Vs. CCE, Mumbai 2015 (329) E.L.T. 539 (Tri. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he submissions of both the parties, we find that in this case the entire demand is time-barred. The period of dispute in the case is from July 2004 to December 2004 and the show-cause notice was issued in March 2007 which is much after the expiry of the period of limitation of one year. Moreover in the show-cause notice, extended period of limitation has not been invoked and there are no reasons given in the show-cause notice for invoking the extended period of limitation. Further we find that t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version