2018 (7) TMI 1782 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - SSI Exemption - aggregate value of clearances - N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - benefit denied on the ground that the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods including nil rate of duty items had exceeded 300 lakhs during the preceding Financial Year i.e. 2002-03 - time limitation - Held that - Notification 8/2003 does not charge duty on any goods retrospectively. It only lays condition that the value of clearances in the previous years which are exempted or nil rated will also be considered for the purposes of arriving the limit of 300 lakhs - In the absence of any ambiguity in the wordings of the Notification the appellants logic appears to be not only queer but bizarre. Time Limitation - Held that - There is no record to show that the appellants had bonafide belief and that they approached the Department for clarification - extended period is rightly invoked. ROM application of the revenue allowed and penalty imposed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of SSI exemption due to exceeding aggregate value of clearances.
2. Validity of show-cause notice and time-barred allegations.
3. Interpretation of Notification 8/2003 for calculating clearances.
4. Invocation of extended period and imposition of penalty.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing dairy products, faced disallowance of SSI exemption for exceeding the aggregate value of clearances. The duty was paid before the show-cause notice, and subsequent appeals led to a penalty set aside based on High Court precedent. However, a ROM application by the Department citing Supreme Court decisions led to the recall of the final order for rehearing before the Division Bench.

Issue 2:
The appellant argued against the show-cause notice, claiming it was time-barred and legally flawed. The Department contended that the penalty set aside earlier was improper based on Supreme Court rulings. The Tribunal found the appellant's arguments unconvincing, stating that the Notification 8/2003 did not charge duty retrospectively, and the appellants failed to follow the conditions for SSI exemption eligibility.

Issue 3:
Regarding the interpretation of Notification 8/2003, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the notification should only apply from 2003-04. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification's wording required including the value of exempted goods for calculating clearances in the preceding year, dismissing the appellant's logic as bizarre and not in line with legislative intent.

Issue 4:
On the issue of limitation and penalty imposition, the Tribunal held that the appellants failed to inform or seek clarification regarding the new notification's conditions, leading to the invocation of the extended period. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants suppressed material facts, justifying the imposition of a penalty equal to the evaded duty amount, in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Dharmendra Textile.

In conclusion, the Department's ROM application was allowed, and a penalty equal to the duty amount was imposed on the appellants under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in open court on 26/07/2018.