TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that the appellants are entitled for SSI exemption - demand set aside. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - the plea of the appellants that as per their bonafide belief the furniture manufactured by them is not excisable is found to be correct - extended period not invocable - the demand is not sustainable on limitation also. Penalty also set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/422, 423/10 - A/86909-86910/17/SMB - Dated:- 19-4-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Rajeev Dinkar Waglay, Advocate for the appellant Shri V.K. Shastri, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER The fact of the case is that the appellants are engaged in the manufacturing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the defence raised by the appellants as regards their eligibility for SSI exemption. Since the aggregate assessable value on which excise duty was confirmed is much below the threshold limit under SSI exemption, the appellants was entitled for the same and therefore no excise duty would arise. He further submits that the issue was relating to the dutiability on the furniture. On this issue various cases were going on. Even the Tribunal also remanded the matter relying on the judgment of the Tribunal. He placed reliance on the decision of the Craft Interiors Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (231) ELT 429 wherein in identical facts the demand was dropped on limitation as there was no malafide intenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding when the demand was raised for ₹ 8,34,855/- after various stages it stands reduced to ₹ 1,94,416/- on the ground that certain furnitures were found to be not excisable goods. In such circumstances, it is clear that the plea of the appellants that as per their bonafide belief the furniture manufactured by them is not excisable is found to be correct. Further in identical case of Craft Interiors (supra) this Tribunal has held that the extended period cannot be invoked as no suppression of fact is involved for the reason that the issue involved is of interpretation of the excisability of the goods. Accordingly, the demand is not sustainable on limitation also. I therefore, modify the impugned order and allow the appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
