2015 (5) TMI 289 - AT - Central Excise

Demand u/s 11A - Extended period of limitation - Denial of the benefit of Sr. No. 6 of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.7.2004 - whether the benefits of exemption under Sr. No. 6 of the Table to Notification No. 30/2004-CE will be admissible to the appellant or not - Held that - Facts involved in the present appeals and the facts involved in the appeals before this Bench while passing order dated 27.10.2014, are identical. Further definition of manufacturer and Factorygiven in other enactments cannot be pressed into service, as argued by Revenue, when the same words have been defined in the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appellants were not availing the benefit of Sr. No. 114 of Notification No. 6/2000-CE dated 01.3.2000 before amendment, as was the case in the relied upon case law of Garden Silk Mills (2014 (10) TMI 809 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD) and also that present appellants never disclosed to the Revenue that POY is procured from their sister concern. It was thus the case of the Revenue that extended period for raising demands under Section 11(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is invokable. It is observed from the case records that there was a general practice in the trade to claim the benefit of Sr. No. 6 of table annexed to Notification No. 30/2004-CE. Appellants can not be said to have any malafide intention if the same benefit was availed by them which was also being availed by similarly placed manufacturers. Under the above factual matrix extended period for raising demands under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can not be invoked against the appellants. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against denial of benefit under Notification No. 30/2004-CE to appellants.

Analysis:
1. Benefit of Exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE:
The main issue in the appeals was whether the appellants were entitled to the benefits of exemption under Sr. No. 6 of the Table to Notification No. 30/2004-CE. The appellants argued that their case was similar to a previous judgment where the benefit was allowed. They contended that demands beyond a year were time-barred due to the general practice in the trade of availing the said notification. The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that the appellants did not qualify as independent processors and thus should not receive the exemption. The Tribunal noted that the facts in the present case were identical to a previous case where the benefit was allowed, and the definitions of "manufacturer" and "factory" in the Central Excise Act, 1944 should apply. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing their appeals.

2. Time-Barred Nature of Demands:
The Revenue contended that the demands were not time-barred under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the appellants had not disclosed certain crucial facts, such as procuring goods from a sister concern. However, the Tribunal observed that the appellants had acted in line with the general trade practice of claiming the benefit of the notification, which did not indicate any malicious intent. Therefore, the extended period for raising demands under Section 11A could not be invoked against the appellants. The Tribunal held that the demands were indeed time-barred based on the factual matrix and legal principles.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellants based on the above analysis and the settled legal principles.