2015 (11) TMI 457 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of small scale industry exemption under notification number 8/2003 CE - whether the first appellate authority has erred in setting aside the demands raised for the period beyond the limitation or otherwise - Held that - Unit at Andheri filed the declaration as required and for availament of the benefit of the notification number 8/2003. At the time of the filing such declaration they had no intention to start new business at another unit hence availment of Cenvat credit and benefit of notification number 9/2003 need not have been submitted before the authorities having jurisdiction over Andheri unit. - revenue s appeal is not bringing on record contrary evidence to hold that appellant had suppressed or mis-stated the information in order to evade Central Excise duty accordingly we hold that the demands dropped by the first appellate authority on limitation is correct and does not require any interference. - Impugned order is upheld - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the first appellate authority erred in setting aside demands raised beyond the limitation period.
2. Whether the respondent's availing of benefits under different notifications was in compliance with the law.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal by the revenue questions the first appellate authority's decision to set aside demands beyond the limitation period. The respondent had availed benefits under two notifications, one allowing duty-free clearances and the other at a concessional rate with Cenvat credit. The revenue argued that the respondent wrongly availed benefits under the duty-free notification at the Vasai unit where Cenvat credit was utilized. The revenue contended that the declaration filed did not disclose this fact, justifying the extended period invocation. However, the respondent argued that they complied with the declarations at each unit as per the respective notifications. The first appellate authority found no suppression or misstatement by the respondent and noted their timely duty payment and compliance with legal precedents. The Tribunal upheld this finding, stating the revenue failed to provide contrary evidence of suppression, leading to the rejection of the revenue's appeal.

Issue 2:
The crux of this issue lies in the compliance of the respondent with the two notifications governing duty benefits. The Tribunal highlighted that the respondent's actions were in line with the law as they had made necessary declarations at each unit based on the applicable notification. The first appellate authority emphasized the respondent's payment of duty with interest and adherence to legal precedents, indicating their willingness to comply with the law. The Tribunal concurred with this assessment, noting the absence of suppression or misstatement by the respondent. The Tribunal's decision rested on the lack of evidence presented by the revenue to challenge the first appellate authority's findings, ultimately upholding the order and dismissing the revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the respondent's compliance with duty notifications and the absence of evidence supporting the revenue's claims of suppression. The decision highlighted the importance of timely duty payment, proper declarations, and adherence to legal requirements in excise matters.