TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o evade duty so larger period invocable - E/608/2007 - 1048/2008 - Dated:- 9-9-2008 - Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) Ms. Radhika Sri Ranjani, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K. Sambi Reddy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)].- This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 47/2007/CE, dated 22-5-2007, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals), Cochin. 2. Ms. Radhika Sri Ranjani, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, learned JDR appeared for the Revenue. 3. We have heard both the sides in the matter. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Ice-cream and sip up alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the clearances of all excisable goods during 2002-03 is concerned, only the Notification No. 8/2003 would be applicable. As far as the penalty is concerned, following the ratio of Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 398 (P H) = 2006 (4) S.T.R. 177 (P. H.), the Commissioner upheld the imposition of the equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. Interest was also upheld. 5. The learned Advocate argued that the Notification No. 8/2003 is similar to the earlier Notification No. 8/2002 except for the deletion of the item pertaining to nil rate and exempted goods. The terms of Notification No. 8/2003 are that while computing the value of clearances of previous year, the value of the goods cleared at ni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shna Industries [2006 (201) E.L.T. 325 (S.C.) = TIOL 117] (xii) Paper Products Ltd. v. CCE [1999 (112) E.L.T. 765] (xiii) Surya Finvest P Ltd. v. CCE [2006 (195) E.L.T. 330]. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The entire dispute is with regard to the question whether the appellant is entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 8/2003 dated 1-3-2003. In order to avail the said notification, all the conditions have to be satisfied. The condition given in Para 2(vii) is relevant here. The said condition is reproduced herein below:- "(vii) the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption by a manufacturer from one or more factories, or from a factory by one or more manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be applicable to the preceding year 2002-03. Hence we reject the appellant's contention on this issue. As regards time-bar, the entire period is not hit by limitation. A part of the demand would actually be within the period of one year; nearly for seven months. However, when there is a change in Notification with effect from 1-3-2003, the appellants had to inform regarding the clearances of the preceding year. It was the bounden duty of the appellants to have examined the new Notification with regard to their eligibility of availing the said exemption. Had they computed the aggregate value of clearances for 2002-03 by including exempted and nil clearances, it would be very clear that such value exceeded Rs. 300 lakhs. The appellants ke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
