2018 (3) TMI 171 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - extended period of limitation - Held that - the respondent has been regularly informing to the authorities about intention of manufacturing branded goods as well as non branded goods as their own products. As the matter of the fact, we perused the records produced by the Learned Departmental Representative and notice that factual findings of First Appellate Authority is correct. The Superintendent incharge of assessee had sought classification on this issued in February 2004. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.38/2008 (H-l) CE dated 31.07.2008.

Analysis:
The appeal filed by the Revenue challenges the Order-in-Original confirming demands for the period 2004-2007, alleging the respondents crossed the limit for SSI exemption by manufacturing exempted products. The First Appellate Authority set aside demands beyond the normal period but upheld those within the normal period from the date of the show cause notice. The appellant argued that their appeal against demands within the limitation was settled. The Learned Counsel for the respondents contested the order, claiming reliance on letters lacking clearances details of exempted products. The letters indicated the respondents' regular communication about manufacturing branded and non-branded goods. The First Appellate Authority correctly found no suppression of facts based on the letters provided by the appellants.

The main issues considered were the time bar aspect and the computation of clearances value, specifically regarding Hawai Chappals with the brand name 'PARAGON' and Rubber Waste. The Department alleged suppression of facts and invoked extended time limits for demanding duties for the financial years 2004-2007. The Department contended that the value of Hawai Chappals had to be considered for calculating clearances, thus denying SSI exemption. However, the appellants had informed the Department about their manufacturing activities through letters. The Department's allegations of suppression were challenged based on the appellants' clear indication of manufacturing activities and exemption availed under Notification No.08/2003. The original adjudicating authority's finding of suppression was deemed unacceptable as the appellants had disclosed the manufacturing of exempted products in their correspondence.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the detailed reasoning of the First Appellate Authority. The records supported the correctness of the factual findings, and it was noted that the Superintendent in charge had sought classification on the issue in February 2004. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was deemed meritless, and the impugned order was upheld as correct and legal without any infirmity. As a result, the Revenue's appeal was rejected.