2017 (2) TMI 1065 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 64/95 dated 16.03.1995 - denial on the ground that the exemption was available only to system and sub-system of launch vehicles and sub-system satellite project while the appellants were not manufacturing the same but were manufacturing cables which were neither the system nor sub-system of launch vehicles and/or satellite - Time limitation - Held that - if at all the department had opinion that the exemption notification is not applicable to the appellant they could have very well initiated the action by issuing show-cause notice within a period of one year from the relevant date, which the department failed to do so - There is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant therefore, the demand invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) could not have been made - appeal is allowed on the ground of limitation, without going into merit of the case.

Summary

Issues: Exemption under notification 64/95 for supply of goods to Government of India for research and development purposes; Appeal against denial of exemption; Time limitation for issuance of show-cause notice.

Analysis:
1. The case involves the appellant supplying goods under notification 64/95 to the Government of India for a specific project. The show-cause notice questioned the eligibility of the appellant for the exemption under the notification as the goods supplied were cables, not part of the specified systems or sub-systems. The original authority allowed the exemption, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The appellant's representative argued that the demand was time-barred as they had complied with the notification conditions by submitting a declaration under Rule 173B and obtaining a certificate from the Department of Space. The clearance of goods was in 2001, while the show-cause notice was issued in 2003, beyond the one-year limitation period. The appellant claimed no suppression of facts and cited relevant case laws to support their argument.

3. The revenue's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing the denial of the exemption.

4. The Tribunal focused on the issue of limitation, noting that the appellant had filed the necessary declaration and certificate, indicating their claim for exemption under the notification. The revenue was aware of this claim, and if they believed otherwise, they should have initiated action within the one-year period. Since there was no suppression of facts, the demand invoking Section 11A(1) was deemed time-barred. The Tribunal highlighted the original authority's clear stance on the time bar issue, which the Commissioner (Appeals) did not address in the impugned order.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal solely on the ground of limitation. The judgment was pronounced on 02/02/2017, in favor of the appellant.