TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not have any intention of evading central excise duty, at the same time it is found that the charges of suppression, mis-declaration or fraudulent intention with the purpose of evading central excise duty, as is required for invoking the extended time proviso under Section 11A of Central Excise Act are not available in the in the facts of the matter - demand is barred by period of limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 50576 of 2018 - A/53109/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 14-9-2018 - Shri C.L. Mahar, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Shri H.C. Saini, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent. ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner (Appeals) who vide his impugned order dated 27/11/2017 has confirmed the findings of order-in-original. The appellant is before us against the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants have contended that they were under genuine belief that while calculating the total turnover for availing SSI exemption the value of exempted goods may not be includable in the total turnover. It has been argued that the value of clearances of Ayurvedic patent and proprietary medicines were less then ₹ 400 lakhs in the preceding financial years 2008 2009 and 2009 2010 and therefore they were under impression that no central excise duty is payable by them. It has further been submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the department and therefore it cannot be alleged that they have suppressed any information with a purpose of evading central excise duty. 4. We have also heard the learned Departmental Representative who has reiterated the findings given in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). 5. We have heard both the sides and have also perused the record of appeal. 6. It is a matter of fact that while calculating aggregate value of clearances the appellant have not included the value of goods which were excisable but otherwise exempted vide Notification No. 3/2005 dated 24/02/2005 it is also a matter of record that that as per the conditions of Notification No. 8/2003 dated 01/03/2003 the value of exempted goods should have also been incl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
