9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of Rs. 10,000/- 2. The said demand has been confirmed against the appellants for the period 30-10-1987 to August 1989 on the ground that during this period the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-CE. The said notification was amended vide Notification No. 224/87, dated 30-10-1987 and the benefit for exemption was made available only to those factories which were not registered with the DGTD, New Delhi. This condition continued up to 31-8-1989 till the said notification was further amended by another Notification No. 174/89, dated 1-9-1989. As the appellants unit was registered with DGTD, the exemption under the said notification was not available to the appellants. 3. Shri K.K. Banerjee, ld. adv. a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R draws our attention to the findings of the Id. adjudicating authority. He submits that admittedly the benefit of the notification was not available to the appellants during the period in question on account of their being registered with DGTD. The fact of registration of the appellants factory with DGTD was never brought to the notice of the department. Even at the time of filing of classification lists the appellants never disclosed that they are not registered with Directorate of Industries as a small scale unit and were registered with DGTD. He submits that such a declaration was specifically required to be made by the appellants while claiming exemption under Notification No. 175/86. This having not been done by the appellants, reflec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted out in course of our discussion on the aforesaid date in the light of clause 4(b)(ii) vide Notification No. 175/86 of Central Excise. A reading of the above paragraph clearly shows that the appellants again avoided a direct answer to their unit being SSI registered issue. 6. We understand that at that point of time the registration as small scale industrial unit was not the criteria for the appellants for availing the benefit inasmuch as the benefit was being availed in terms of para 4(b). However, the said letters cannot be said to have imparted any knowledge to the department as regards the appellants status of being a DGTD unit. When the law was amended in October 1987, it was the duty of the appellants to file a fresh classific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and it was held that where the facts were suppressed and the lists got approved from the department by suppression of facts, the department will be justified invoking extended period of limitation and the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Cotspun will not be of any assistance to the assessee. We accordingly observe that as in the present case the classification lists were got approved by the appellants by not disclosing the fact of his being registered with DGTD and by not declaring his status in the classification lists, the ratio of the Cotspon does not apply. Accordingly we hold that the longer period of limitation was available to the department and has been rightly invoked. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
