2004 (6) TMI 514 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal setting aside demand confirmation
- Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 1/95-C.E.
- Time limit for issuing show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act
- Allegations of suppression and violation of bond conditions

Analysis:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal setting aside demand confirmation:
The Revenue filed an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 325/2003, where the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication Order confirming the demand against the Respondents. The appeal was based on the contention that the Respondents, a 100% E.O.U. engaged in producing cut flowers, availed benefits under different notifications.

2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 1/95-C.E.:
The dispute centered around the Respondents procuring a D.G. set under Notification No. 1/95-C.E. The Revenue argued that the Respondents, already availing exemption under Notification No. 136/94-C.E., were not eligible for the benefits under Notification No. 1/95-C.E. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, citing the late issuance of the show cause notice and absence of suppression allegations.

3. Time limit for issuing show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act:
The show cause notice for demanding duty on the D.G. set was issued beyond the 6-month period specified in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal concurred that the demand was time-barred, emphasizing that no suppression or mis-declaration was alleged in the notice, and the Respondents had followed due process in obtaining permissions.

4. Allegations of suppression and violation of bond conditions:
The Respondents argued that they procured the D.G. set in 1995, while the show cause notice was issued in 1997, exceeding the statutory time limit. They maintained compliance with the bond conditions and challenged the Revenue to identify any violations. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, as the demand was beyond the statutory time limit, and no bond conditions were breached by the Respondents.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, rejecting the Revenue's appeal due to the time-barred nature of the demand and the absence of evidence supporting allegations of violations or suppression by the Respondents.