2016 (7) TMI 1204 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - extended period of limitation - eligibility to avail benefit of Notification No.9/03-CE dated 01.03.2003 - the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption from its two units during 2003-04 had exceeded ₹ 300 Lakhs. - Held that - if it is not open to the superior court to either add or substitute words in a statute, such right cannot be available to a statutory Tribunal - The reasoning that once knowledge has been acquired by the Department, there is no suppression, and as such, the ordinary statutory period of limitation prescribed under sub-section 1 of Section 11 A would be applicable is fallacious, inasmuch as, once the suppression is admitted merely because the Department acquires knowledge of the irregularities; the suppression would not be obliterated. - Demand confirmed - Decided against the assessee.

Issues:
1. Eligibility for SSI exemption under Notification No.9/03-CE.
2. Time-barred demand for the show cause notice.
3. Allegations of suppression of facts by the appellant.
4. Interpretation of the conditions of Notification No.9/03-CE.
5. Knowledge of the Department about the appellant's activities.
6. Applicability of the extended period for raising demands.

Eligibility for SSI exemption under Notification No.9/03-CE:
The appeal was filed against an order upholding a demand due to the appellant availing SSI exemption despite clearances exceeding the threshold. The appellant's advocate admitted in the Tribunal that the appellant was not entitled to the exemption for the relevant year. The demand was based on exceeding the &8377; 300 Lakhs limit, as per the Notification. The Tribunal found the demand justified as per the Notification's conditions.

Time-barred demand for the show cause notice:
The appellant argued that the demand was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond the typical one-year period. The appellant claimed no misstatement or suppression of facts, citing the declaration submitted as per the Notification's requirements. The Tribunal considered this argument but ultimately upheld the demand on its merits.

Allegations of suppression of facts by the appellant:
The Department alleged that the appellant suppressed facts regarding clearances of excisable goods by its other unit while filing returns. The appellant contended that it submitted the required declaration accurately, excluding the value of beedies not considered specified goods. The Tribunal analyzed the submission and found the allegation of suppression sustainable.

Interpretation of the conditions of Notification No.9/03-CE:
The Tribunal noted that the appellant's claim for exemption under the Notification indicated awareness of its contents. The conditions, including the &8377; 300 Lakhs limit, were unambiguous. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument of lack of awareness regarding the conditions and upheld the allegation of suppression based on the clear wording of the Notification.

Knowledge of the Department about the appellant's activities:
The appellant argued that since both units were registered under the same range, the Department had knowledge of their activities. However, the Tribunal referenced a judgment highlighting that Departmental knowledge does not impact the applicability of the statutory period for raising demands. The Tribunal dismissed this argument based on legal precedent.

Applicability of the extended period for raising demands:
The Tribunal clarified that once suppression is admitted, Departmental knowledge does not nullify the suppression. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents to support its decision that the extended period for raising demands was applicable in this case. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

← Previous Next →