9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd denatured spirit and fusel oil falling under 2204.10 and 3824.90 respectively. The denatured spirit and fusel oil are liable to duty @ 16% while the other goods viz., rectified spirit and extra neutral alcohol attract NIL rate of duty. The said unit is under the physical control of The Distillery Officer of the A.P. State Excise and Prohibition Department. During the course of verification of records by the departmental officers it was noticed that the value of clearances of denatured spirit made by the appellants during 2004-05 is Rs. 18,40,964/- and fusel oil is Rs. 36,000/- and no duty has been paid by the appellants even though they are not eligible for availing the benefits under the Notification No. 8/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly impure spirit; that the customers would bring certain denaturants which were mixed in the customers tankers in the factory premises of the appellant-company before the State Excise Officials. 3. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand raised on the assessee and imposed penalties. On an appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order on the ground of time-bar. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned DR appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that the Order-in-Appeal is not correct. It is his submission that the finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the show cause notice is hit by limitation is incorrect. The respondent herein had cleared the goods without taking out central excise registration and wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the respondent is not in appeal against such a finding. 7. The entire demand has been raised by the Revenue vide show cause notice dated 21-6-07. From the said show cause notice we find that the anti-evasion officers had recorded the last statement on 9-2-05 and in that statement it was clearly recorded that the respondent had stopped production from 15-12-1994. Subsequent to this statement, no other statement were recorded and all the other records were withdrawn by the authorities. We find that on this point learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held as under : The third point for decision is whether the show cause notice is hit by time limitation or not? I find that in the light of judgment delivered by the Tribunal in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts or in contravention of any of the provisions of Central Excise Act or Central Excise Rules with intent to evade payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order has rightly held that once it came to the notice of the Department that the products were not P or P medicine, show cause notice for the subsequent period should have been issued from time to time within the normal limitation period. The reliance of the department on the decision in the case of Nizam Sugar does not help the Revenue s case since what was held by the Larger Bench in Nizam Sugar case was that any show cause notice issued beyond the period of six months form the date of acquiring knowledge will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
