9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification 175/86 from the date of their application made to the Directorate of Cottage Small Scale Industries or the same would be applicable from the date when the actual registration certificate was granted to the appellants. Apart from this, the demand has also been assailed on the point of limitation. 2. Arguing on the appeal, Shri K.K. Banerjee, ld. advocate submits that the appellants started their production with effect from 16-7-1987 and applied to the Directorate of Cottage and Small Scale Industries on 19-9-1987. After applying, they started to avail the benefit of small-scale exemption notification 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 and informed the Department accordingly. In this connection, he draws our attention to the various letters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this point raised by the Revenue is not valid point. As regards the applicability of the small-scale certificate with effect from the date of application, he submits that the issue is no more res integra and has been decided by the Majority decision in the case of Melvin Powell Vanaspati Engineering Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cal. I [2000 (125) E.L.T. 974 (Tribunal) = 1999 (32) RLT 801 (CEGAT)] and followed by the Tribunal in a number of cases. The reference in this regard has been made by Shri Banerjee to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Borg Instrumentations Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi [2000 (115) E.L.T. 693 (Tri.) = 2000 (36) RLT 631 (CEGAT)]. 4. Arguing on the point of limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gal validity. As such, he submits that the question of small-scale certificate effective from the date of application does not arise at all. Accordingly, he submits that the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Melvin Powell (supra) should not be followed inasmuch as the facts of the instant case are different. As regards the limitation, he submits that the Commissioner has dealt with the point of invokation of longer period in detail in the impugned order. Though he has admitted the appellants' letter written in 1987 to the Department informing their intention of availing of small-scale exemption notification benefit, he submits that the said letter cannot come to the rescue of the appellants inasmuch as the letters were written ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicants have a strong case on limitation and the show-cause notice issued on 6-9-1991 for the period 1-7-1987 to 4-9-1989 is well beyond the normal period of six months as provided under Section 11A of the Act. We have also seen the various letters written by the appellants to the Department including the letter written on 3-4-1989 intimating the change in partners. As such, it cannot be said that there was any suppression or wilful mis-statement on the part of the appellants with intent to evade the payment of duty. As such, we hold that the demand is also barred by limitation. 9. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
