9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same for payment of central excise duty on the goods cleared by them. A Show Cause Notice dated 22.02.2010 was issued to the appellant on the allegation that the appellant had manufactured and cleared the machine namely relaxed drum@4% Central Excise duty during the period October 2008 to December 2009 by availing the Exemption Notification No. 6/2022-CE dated 01.03.2022 which was superseded vide Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2007 whereas the appellants machinery, namely, relaxed drum was not covered under the Notification, therefore, the appellant have wrongly availed the Exemption Notification. Accordingly, the demand was raised and the same was confirmed vide Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2011. Being aggrieved by the said ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E & ST SURAT-I, 2022 6 TMI 706 - CESTAT (AMD) this Tribunal has taken a view that there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, the penalty under Rule 25 cannot be sustained. He submits that the show cause notice in the present case is for the subsequent period since in the first show cause notice it was held that there is no suppression of fact in the show cause notice, no malafide can be attributed to the appellant. 3. Shri P. Ganesan, Learned (Superintendent) authorized representative reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides and perusal of record, we find that the limited issue to be decided in the present appeal is that whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal before this tribunal. In the first round this Tribunal had remanded the matter vide Final Order No A/11705/2019 dated 06.09.2019 wherein the following order was passed:- "4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the issue on merit is settled as the same has been decided in the case of CCE, Surat vs. Bhagyarekha Engineers P Ltd. (supra) against the assessee and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court . Now the only issue remains to be decided is whether the demand raised by the Revenue is barred by limitation. In this regard, we find that the appellant have heavily relied upon the physical verification report for registration vide F.no. RI Registration/AEW/07 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e belief that the same is covered under exemption Notification No 06/2006-CE under the description of "Relax Conveyer drying machine" 4.1 .... 4.2 .... 4.3 In view of the above judgment coupled with the particular facts of the present case there is no doubt in our mind to hold that there is no suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty on the part of the appellant. In the present case the demand for the period 15.04.2004 to February 2008 was raised by the Show cause notice dated 06.04.2009 hence the entire demand is prior to normal period of one year, therefore the same is hit by the limitation. Accordingly we hold that the demand raised in the SCN and confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority is not sustainable being t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
