TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the absence of any ambiguity in the wordings of the Notification, the appellants’ logic appears to be not only queer but bizarre. Time Limitation - Held that:- There is no record to show that the appellants had bonafide belief and that they approached the Department for clarification - extended period is rightly invoked. ROM application of the revenue allowed and penalty imposed. - E/MISC/20475/2016 in E/608/2007-DB - Final Order No. 21005/2018 - Dated:- 26-7-2018 - HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And HON'BLE SHRI P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Smt. Radhika S, Advocate For the Appellant Smt. Kavitha Poduwal, Superintendent ( AR ) For the Respondent ORDER Per : P. Anjani Kumar M/s. Malabar R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd. 2006 (202) E.L.T. 177 (Tri.-LB) wherein it was held that even if a decision of the Supreme Court or High Court is rendered after the order of the Tribunal, it would be a case of an error apparent from the record of such order. Therefore the Department submitted that the ROM be allowed. This Bench vide order dated 14.07.2009 has allowed the ROM application recalling the Final Order and directing the Registry to list the case for rehearing before the Division Bench. 2. The counsel for the appellants has pleaded that since the Bench has ordered that the matter may be heard it indicates that the order should be reheard on entirety not only on the issue of penalty as per the ROM. The show-cause notice i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y given a finding to the effect that the appellant s argument is that the deletion of the condition cannot be applied for the year 2002-03 is devoid of any logic. In our view the notification is very clear. When there is a deletion regarding non-inclusion of clearance of exempted goods/nil rate of duty goods for inclusion of the aggregate value of the clearance of the preceding financial year, which automatically means that such value had to be included. The respondents failed to do that on merits, therefore, we are not convinced with the argument of the respondents. The case-law cited by them are distinguishable. The Notification specifically refers to the value of the clearance of preceding year and it prescribes a method of computing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with intention to evade payment of duty would not have stood. But in this case, there is no record to show that the appellants had bonafide belief and that they approached the Department for clarification. In such circumstances, we hold that the invocation of longer period would be applicable. We also find that the appellants are a unit which have been regularly availing the exemption under respective SSI notifications. In such a situation, they cannot claim to be ignorant to the new notification which put forth a new condition. They have not taken any step either to follow the notification or to seek a clarification from the Department. Instead they have resorted to a queer logic in interpreting the wordings of the notification claiming t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
