9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the period 1-4-2000 to 28-2-2005 from the appellants in adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 28-3-2006, wherein the extended period of limitation had been invoked on the ground of suppression of facts. The ld. Commissioner also imposed a penalty equal to duty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The impugned demand of duty is consequential to denial of the benefit of Notification No. 41/99-C.E. dated 26-11-99, 13/03-C.E. dated 1-3-03 and 42/03-C.E., dated 14-5-03. These Notifications, which were issued by the Central Government to benefit "small tea growers", granted exemption from payment of duty on "processed tea (including Black Tea)" processed out of green tea leaves procured mainly from "small tea growers". It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that this fact was suppressed by the noticee. Vis-a-vis this allegation, the assessee, in their reply, stated that, at the commencement of every fiscal year, they were possessed of documents which indicated that the raw material-suppliers were "small tea growers". Documents referred to by the assessee are (a) Certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer (V.A.O) regarding the extent of land held by tea grower (b) Registration Certificate issued by the Tea Board showing the extent of land held under tea cultivation by the tea grower and (c) Certificate (self-declaration) of the tea grower. It is submitted that, on the strength of these documents, the assessee believed bona fide that they were procuring green tea leaf from "smal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, leased out of a part of their agricultural land and had not shown the same as part of tea cultivation in their declarations made to the assessee. As against this case of the Revenue, ld. counsel submits that the Tea Board considered even the tenants of such tea growers as tea growers for the purpose of subsidy. In other words, tea growers who were owners in possession of land and tea growers who were tenants in possession of land were equally considered by the Tea Board for purposes of subsidy. The point sought to be made by the counsel is that the clubbing of the leased portion of the land with the land held by a tea grower for the purpose of determining whether the tea grower is a "small tea grower" for purposes of the Exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, is a rebuttal presumption. The Revenue wanted to rebut on the strength of AIT Returns retrieved from the Agricultural Income Tax Department of the State Government. These returns were filed by the tea growers returning income earned not only from tea cultivation but also other agricultural sources and the tea-cultivated land as shown in these returns was above 10 Ha, but this fact was not known to the assessee. Therefore, the AIT Returns cannot be accepted as having the effect of disproving the assessee's plea of bona fide belief based on Tea Board's Registration Certificate and the VAO's certificates. The third document, which made the assessee believe that the tea growers were "small tea growers" is the self-declaration of the tea gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
