9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Duty of Rs. 93,508.58 had been confirmed against the appellants and a penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh has been imposed, vide the impugned Order. 2. The appellants are small-scale manufacturers and during the material period, were availing the benefit of Notification No. 1/93. In terms of the said Notification, the appellants were entitled to duty-free clearance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellants cleared their final product at nil rate of duty, even after crossing the clearances of Rs. 30.00 lakh. In support of his above submission, he strongly relied upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of Paise Fund Glass Works v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 460 (T) in which under similar circumstances, the demand was held to be barred by limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred supra. It was held in the said case that failure to furnish the progressive totals of exempted clearance on RT-12 returns and on gate passes and thus exceeding exemption limit, will not amount to mis-statement or mis-declaration or suppression of facts so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. It was further observed as follows, by the Tribunal :- 4. We find that show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of excise by mis-declaration, mis-statement or suppression of facts to invoke the larger period under Section 11A of the Act. On going through the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration that detailed figures were given in RT-12 returns from time to time and throughout the period it was exempted and since the proper officer has not verified but issued notice after two years we are o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
