TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the above, if the language in the earlier Exemption Notification dated 01.03.1986 and the Exemption Notification dated 16.03.1995 were the same and the instructions issued by the Central Board of Customs & Central Excise would also co-relate. In any case, it cannot be said that there was any suppression or that there was any intention to evade the duty - Appeal dismissed - Decided against the revenue. - CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 26/2016 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2017 - MR. JAYANT PATEL AND MR. A N VENUGOPALA GOWDA JJ. APPELLANT: (BY SRI.K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) RESPONDENT: (BY SRI.CHERIAN PUNNOOSE, ADVOCATE) JAYANT PATEL J., ORDER The appellant-Revenue has preferred the appeal by raising two substantial questions of law which reads as under: 1. WHETHER, under the circumstances of the case, the CESTAT is right in holding that the demand is barred by limitation on the ground that there is a bonafide belief and the clarification issued by the Bangalore Commissionerate? 2. WHETHER, the CESTAT is right in holding that the Respondent is entitled for the benefit of exemption on the basis of the Certificate said to have been issued by the CSIO Or Aeronaut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petent authority. The matter was carried before the higher forum and ultimately before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the period of limitation available would be of only one year and not five years because of the bonafide act on the part of the respondent herein to clear the goods as if exempted and therefore the Tribunal also held that the period of five years would not be available which can be invoked only in specific circumstances. The Tribunal after having found that the period of one year may be available, the matter is remanded to the competent authority. Under the circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 5. We have heard Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Cherian Punnoose, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. We may record that the Tribunal in the impugned order at paragraphs 9 and 10 has observed thus: 9. As regards Notification No. 10/97-CE dated 01.03.1997 is concerned, the Revenue s objection is that the certificate produced by the assessee in terms of the said notifications are not duly signed by the proper officer. However we find that certificates handed over to the appellant duly signed by CSI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice; (b) the person chargeable with duty may, before service of notice under clause (a), pay on the basis of, - (i) his own ascertainment of such duty; or (ii) duty ascertained by the Central Excise Officer, the amount of duty along with interest payable thereon under section 11-AA. (2) The person who has paid the duty under clause (b) of sub-section (1), shall inform the Central Excise Officer of such payment in writing, who, on receipt of such information, shall not serve any notice under clause (a) of that sub-section in respect of the duty so paid or any penalty leviable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder. (3) Where the Central Excise Officer is of the opinion that the amount paid under clause (b) of sub-section (1) falls short of the amount actually payable, then, he shall proceed to issue the notice as provided for in clause (a) of that sub-section in respect of such amount which falls short of the amount actually payable in the manner specified under that sub-section and the period of one year sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her there is any perversity in the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal or not, the finding recorded by the Tribunal at paragraphs 9 and 10 referred to herein above, cannot be said to be perverse finding. 9. However, Mr. K.V. Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the appellant attempted to contend that by virtue of Notification No.63/95-CE dated 16.03.1995, the earlier Notification No.184/86-CE dated 01.03.1986 as well as the clarification shall get superseded. He submitted that in the notification dated 16.03.1995, the language is clear that if the goods are manufactured by HAL itself and are for supply to the Ministry of Defence for official purposes, then only the exemption is available. In his submission, since the language is clear and if the duties are not paid by claiming exemption, the intention to evade duty can be gathered and therefore, the period of limitation of five years would be available and not one year as concluded by the Tribunal. 10. In our view, the contention is thoroughly misconceived for the simple reason that in the earlier Notification No.184/86 dated 01.03.1986, the language was as under: Manufactured by the units specified in the annexur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
