9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 901 - AT - Central ExciseJob-Work - benefit of SSI Exemption by Notification No. 1/93-C.E., if manufactured on job work basis - demand based upon the loose papers/ despatch bills recovered from the factory of the appellant - Whether the substantial condition for the exemption notification No. 83/94-CE dated 11.4.1994 has been complied with by the appellant with respect to the raw material supplied by Shri Mohan Lal Barfa? - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - There are no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) that Shri Mohan Lal Barfa had sent scrap to the appellant and received back lead powder manufactured on the job work basis which has been sold to his brother Shri Laxman Barfa and other traders. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not produce any such documents which may prove that job work goods had been sent to the factory of Shri Mohan Lal Barfa itself to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of such specified goods as are exempted from whole duty of excise leviable thereon under Notification No. 8/2003. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - Though the learned Counsel has impressed upon several case laws impressing upon that there was no suppression on the part of the appellant but it is observed that appellant was entitled to SSI exemption only in terms of Notification No. 8/2003-CE and Notification No. 83/94. It has already been observed that substantial condition of said exemption notification has not been duly complied with by the appellant. Absence thereof is opined to be correctly held as suppression on the part of the appellant extending the Department to invoke the extended period of limitation. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Alleged evasion of Central Excise duty by the appellant leading to recovery and seizure of incriminating documents. 2. Confirmation of demand and penalties by Commissioner (Appeals) partially, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Contradictions in statements of involved parties regarding lead powder supply and job work. 4. Wrong invocation of extended period of limitation in the show cause notice. 5. Compliance with the substantial conditions for exemption under Notification No. 83/94-CE dated 11.4.1994. Issue 1: Alleged Evasion of Central Excise Duty The appellant was suspected of evading Central Excise duty, leading to searches at their premises and the issuance of a Show Cause Notice proposing recovery. The Original Adjudicating Authority confirmed a significant amount of the demand, which was partially upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), resulting in an appeal before the Tribunal. Issue 2: Confirmation of Demand and Penalties The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed a portion of the demand based on evidence from statements and documents, particularly related to lead powder supply to a battery manufacturer. The appellant disputed this confirmation, emphasizing contradictions in statements and lack of tangible evidence against them. Issue 3: Contradictions in Statements The appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to note contradictions in statements regarding lead powder supply and job work. They highlighted the lack of concrete evidence supporting the alleged clandestine clearance, urging the Tribunal to set aside the order. Issue 4: Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation The appellant challenged the invocation of the extended period of limitation in the show cause notice, citing legal precedents. However, the Department defended the decision, stating that the appellant's failure to comply with exemption conditions justified the extended period. Issue 5: Compliance with Exemption Conditions The main controversy revolved around whether the appellant complied with the substantial conditions for exemption under Notification No. 83/94-CE. The Tribunal examined the notification's requirements and scrutinized statements to determine if the conditions were met, ultimately upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, dismissing the appellant's appeal. The judgment focused on the compliance with exemption conditions, contradictions in statements, and the invocation of the extended period of limitation. The detailed analysis of evidence and legal provisions formed the basis for the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of meeting statutory requirements for exemptions and the burden of proof in excise duty matters.
|
