TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2018 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri M. Chandra Bose, Additional Joint Commissioner (AR) - for the Appellant Ms Radha Arun, Advocate - for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per: M.V. Ravindran] This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.38/2008 (H-l) CE dated 31.07.2008. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order on the ground that the First Appellate Authority incorrectly set aside the Order-in-Original that confirmed the demands by invoking extended period. 4. In the case in hand, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands raised for the period 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time bar aspect for consideration. From the records it is seen that the appellants had availed the small scale exemption in terms of Notification No.08/2003 dated 01.03.2003 for the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 in respect of solid rubber types manufactured by them. A case has been made out by the Department that the appellants had not given the details of value of clearances of exempted Hawai Chappals and Rubber Waste in the ER-3 returns filed by them, and that taking the value of such clearances for the computation of the value of clearances made during the relevant financial years the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of small scale exemption. The appellant, on the other hand, are relying on their letters dated 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which are referred to above, had clearly indicated the manufacturing activity of chappals and the solid tyres and had also referred to their availing the benefit of Notification No.08/2003 It is also on record that they had taken registration for the manufacture of the solid rubber tyres which were liable to duty but for the exemption interms of Notification No.08/2003. In the light of these letters of the appellants, it is difficult to accept the Department's allegation of suppression of facts. When the appellants had clearly indicated the fact of manufacture and the availment of the exemption interms of Notification No.08/2003, it was for the Department to probe or seek for further information in case it was felt that there was a ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
