TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus, there is no correct declaration of the description of the goods mentioned in the ER-1 Returns which have been manufactured and cleared by them by raising invoices mentioning a different description. The mis-declaration of the description of the goods would invite extended period of limitation in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMR. OF CEN. EXC. AHMEDABAD VERSUS URMIN PRODUCTS P. LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2023 (10) TMI 1112 - SUPREME COURT] . The order of the learned Commissioner denying the benefit of exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 and confirming the demand invoking extended period has been upheld. However, even though the appellant had deposited the amount in August 2014, which has been appropriated in the impugned order passed in February 2016, the interest liability has not been calculated and mentioned in the order; therefore, the reduction of penalty to 25% as per Section 11AC(1)(c) could not have been availed by the appellant. Thus, the appellant be given a fair chance by communicating the quantum of interest payable and in the event the appellant discharges the interest amount within 30 days from the date of comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Padmini Products Vs. Collector [1989(43) ELT 195 (SC)]. Also they have submitted that exemption under Notification No.15/2010-CE dated 27.02.2010 also available to them on submission of MNRE certificate prior to clearance of goods. Non-production of the said certificate at best be a procedural lapse and substantial benefit should not be denied to them. The Department cannot feign ignorance of the facts as they have been filing regularly periodical ER-1 returns with the Department and no objection was ever raised on the said returns by the Revenue. Further explaining the scope of suppression, they referred to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Lakshmi Engineering Works Vs. CCE [1989(44) ELT 353 (Tri.)] which is also upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court. They also referred to the following judgments on the issue of limitation. i. Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company Vs. CCE [1995(78) ELT 401 (SC)] ii. Anand Nishikawa Company Ltd. Vs. CCE [2005(188) ELT 149 (SC)] iii. Uniworth Textile Limited Vs. CCE, Raipur [2013(288) ELT 161 (SC)] iv. Continental Foundation Joint Venture Holding Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I [2007(216) ELT 177 (SC)] v. Bharat Hotels Limited Vs. CCE(Adjudication) [2018(12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. We find that the Principal Bench in Raydean Industries case, after analysing the entries held as follows : - 16. The Principal Commissioner has rightly concluded that the serial number 10 of List 8 refers to solar power generating system and not to module mounting structures manufactured by the appellant and only parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for the manufacture of goods specified at serial numbers 1 to 20 of List 8 are exempted from payment of central excise duty. 17. The Principal Commissioner has also correctly appreciated the effect of the amendment made on 11.07.2014 to the aforesaid notification dated 17.03.2012. According to the Principal Commissioner, prior to the amendment only parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for the manufacture of goods specified at serial numbers 1 to 20 of List 8 were exempted, but after the said amendment the exemption is also available to parts of goods specified at serial numbers 1 to 20 of List 8 in a situation where it is consumed not only within the factory of production for the manufacture of goods specified in List 8 but also when use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipments, the project cannot function. Once the entry includes Solar Power Project , all the material equipments used for the purposes of setting up power based project are certainly entitled for grant of exemption. 20. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Learned Commissioner, with a total non-application of mind, has passed the impugned order, and therefore, the impugned order dated 25-3-2017 passed by the Learned Commissioner deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. The respondents shall grant exemption under Entry No. 71(10) in respect of sub-station equipment/grid and all other equipments supplied by the petitioner during the course of execution of its works contract, as they form integral part of solar power generating system. Recovery, if any, on account of impugned order dated 25-3-2017 also stands quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. 20. The Madhya Pradesh High Court was examining a policy framed by the State Government which was different from what is contained in the notification dated 17.03.2012 under consideration. It is seen that the notification dated 17.03.2012 while describing the excisable goods refers to non-c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s cited by the appellant are not applicable to the present case. On the other hand, mis-declaration of the description of the goods would invite extended period of limitation in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad Vs. Urmin Products P. Ltd. others (supra) Also, in the aforesaid judgment of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, extended period of limitation has been upheld. 8. In view of the above, the order of the learned Commissioner denying the benefit of exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 and confirming the demand invoking extended period has been upheld. However, we find that even though the appellant had deposited the amount in August 2014, which has been appropriated in the impugned order passed in February 2016, the interest liability has not been calculated and mentioned in the order; therefore, the reduction of penalty to 25% as per Section 11AC(1)(c) could not have been availed by the appellant. In the circumstances, the appellant be given a fair chance by communicating the quantum of interest payable and in the event the appellant discharges the interest amount within 30 days from the date of communicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
