9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (3) TMI 45 - AT - Central ExciseCentral Excise - SSI exemption - Revenue did not make any ground on time bar in appeal that assessee are not eligible to avail second notification after availing first notification - Eligible for exemption
Issues:
Availment of Notification No. 8/01-C.E. and exemption under Notification No. 9/01-C.E. Analysis: The Revenue appealed against Orders-in-Appeal regarding the availment of Notification No. 8/01-C.E. and exemption under Notification No. 9/01-C.E. The Revenue argued that the assessee cannot benefit from both notifications and must clear goods at the tariff rate of 16% ad valorem. The learned Advocate defended the assessee's position, stating that demands were time-barred, there was no suppression of facts, and the duty was being paid correctly. The learned SDR reiterated the Revenue's stance but failed to demonstrate the sustainability of the demands or the absence of time-bar. The Commissioner's order was analyzed, noting that the appellants could avail both notifications in the same financial year. The Commissioner found that after availing Notification No. 8/01-C.E., the appellants could opt for Notification No. 9/01-C.E. The appellants had correctly paid duty as per the provisions of Notification No. 9/01-C.E., and the demands were within the exemption limits of both notifications. The adjudicating authority's reasoning was deemed unsustainable as it contradicted the notifications' provisions. The appellants were found to have correctly availed the SSI notifications and paid duty accordingly. The appeals filed by the appellant unit and the managing partner were allowed, setting aside the impugned order. The order was deemed correct, with no infirmity or illegality found. The demands were considered time-barred, as the Revenue did not contest the time bar in the appeal memo. The Commissioner's order was upheld as legal and proper, not warranting any interference. The appeal was rejected, and the operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on the conclusion of the hearing.
|
