TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation and demand needs to be set aside - Lower authorities will recalculate the demand within the limitation period and inform the appellant to discharge the same alongwith interest. Penalty - Rule 25 of CER 2002 - Held that: - the appellant being a Government organization, could not have had any intention to remove the goods without payment of duty and more specifically when they have subsequent clearances, produced various certificates issued by Navel authorities indicating that these goods are used as stores in the ship - This could be the mis-interpretation and mis-conception of N/N. 64/95-C. - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. E/908/2008 - A/30223/2018 - Dated:- 31-1-2018 - MR. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity after extending the benefit of modvat credit available to the appellant. 5. Adjudicating authority in the de novo proceedings by the order impugned, has extended the benefit of modvat credit to the appellant and confirmed the demands raised with interest, dropped the proceedings initiated for imposing penalty under section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 but imposed penalty of ₹ 10.00 lakhs under rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 6. Ld. Counsel submits that appellants are eligible for the benefit of notification 64/95-C as they were under the impression that the goods supplied are for the consumption as stores on the vessel of Indian Navy and the electronic items which were cleared by the appellant were to be fitted o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s cleared during the period 11.04.2002 to 28.02.2003, seems to be a new claim before the Tribunal. The said claim was not made by them before the adjudicating authority in both the rounds. Be that as it may, we find that the benefit of notification 25/2002-CE requires conditions of providing or producing a certificate signed by an Officer not below the rank of Rear Admiral of Indian Navy or of any other officer of the Indian navy equivalent to the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, before clearances of the goods and that the goods intended for the use in Indian Navy. In our considered view, for the clearances made from 11.04.2002 to 28.02.2003 were done so, without such certificate, hence claiming the benefit of Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contrary to their own statement that show cause notices are issued to the appellant. If various and periodical show cause notices are issued to the appellant on the same issue, show cause notice dated 16.10.2003, which is in dispute in this appeal, is definitely demanding duty liability which is beyond one year from the date of issuance of show cause notice. This law is now settled by Honble Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory. Respectfully following the ratio, we hold that the demand of duty liability for the period beyond one year from the date of issuance of show cause notice is hit by limitation and demand needs to be set aside. Lower authorities will recalculate the demand within the limitation period and inform the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
