9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 752 - AT - Central ExciseSSI exemption - export turnover not included in value of clearances - suppression of facts - time limitation - Held that - the entire demand is time-barred. The period of dispute in the case is from July 2004 to December 2004 and the show-cause notice was issued in March 2007 which is much after the expiry of the period of limitation of one year. Moreover in the show-cause notice, extended period of limitation has not been invoked and there are no reasons given in the show-cause notice for invoking the extended period of limitation. On merit also the demand is not sustainable because under the SSI Exemption Notification 9/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 only clearances made for home consumption is covered and not the exported goods. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
1. Time-barred demand due to delayed show-cause notice issuance. 2. Applicability of SSI Exemption Notification to export clearances. 3. Failure to invoke extended period of limitation in the show-cause notice. Issue 1: Time-barred demand due to delayed show-cause notice issuance The appellant contended that the demand was time-barred as the show-cause notice was issued in March 2007, well beyond the one-year limitation period from the period of export in 2004. Citing judicial precedents, the appellant argued that the extended period of limitation was not invoked in the notice, rendering the demand void ab initio. The Tribunal agreed, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. U.P. Lamination, where it was held that notices issued beyond the permissible period without allegations of intent to evade duty are time-barred. Issue 2: Applicability of SSI Exemption Notification to export clearances The appellant argued that the SSI Exemption Notification 9/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 only covers clearances for home consumption and not for exported goods. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that the exemption does not extend to export turnover, as upheld by various judgments, including U.V. Laboratories Vs. CCE, Thane-II and Polo Singh & Co. (Industry) Vs. Collector of C.EX., New Delhi. Therefore, the demand based on including export value in the first clearances of ?100 lakhs was deemed unsustainable. Issue 3: Failure to invoke extended period of limitation in the show-cause notice The appellant highlighted that the show-cause notice did not mention invoking the extended period of limitation, which was a crucial procedural requirement. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the absence of reasons for invoking the extended period in the notice rendered the demand legally unsustainable. By referencing judicial precedents and the lack of compliance with statutory provisions, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not legally tenable and set it aside, providing consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order due to the time-barred demand, non-applicability of SSI Exemption to export clearances, and failure to adhere to procedural requirements regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation in the show-cause notice. The judgment underscored the importance of statutory compliance and adherence to legal precedents in excise duty matters.
|
