9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd supplied to the above referred customers against certificates issued by the customers certifying nature of the institute/buyer and also the purpose with reference to the notification concerned for which the goods were ordered by them, and the Central Excise invoices issued by the appellant also contain reference to the Notification number and also payment of amount at the rate of 8% of the value of these goods in view of Rule 57CC/Rule 6 of the Cenvat Scheme, and such reversal with reference to the Notification number was also shown in the Cenvat Register maintained in Form RG-23A. 1. 25.08.95- The appellant's refund claim for duty paid on goods supplied to customers under Notification No. 52/94-CE was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the exemption was not available (page 75). 2. 22.01.96-The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed appeal against the above order and held that the exemption and refund of duties paid on the goods were admissible (page 67). 3.19.02.97-The Assistant Commissioner passed an OIO and sanctioned refund pursuant to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and thus exemption of Notification No.52/94 (now 6/2002) was allowed. 3A-1997 to 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 143). 13.18.01.2010-The appellant filed a note of submissions with a paper book of 107 pages before the Commissioner for all the four Show Cause Notices and submitted break-up of value of goods cleared under the above three Notifications separately, and also submitted that the extended period of limitation invoked under the first Show Cause Notice dated 16.3.2005 was unjustified. The appellant submitted details of goods cleared under Notification No.6/2002 separately because it appeared that the goods cleared under this Notification were not covered under the other two Notifications and accordingly the appellant had to pay excise duties for the goods cleared under Notification No.6/2002. (Page 158 to 382) 14.18.03.2010-The Commissioner has passed the impugned order and confirmed the demand of duties for the goods removed under Notification No. 6/2002 but for all the four Show Cause Notices i.e. also for the extended period invoked under the first Show Cause Notice (page 383). The Commissioner has held (i) that the wires and cables falling under Heading 85.44 were mis-declared as parts of aeroplanes and Helicopters for claiming Notification No. 6/2002 , (ii) that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the invoices as well as in Cenvat Register but Notification Number was not shown in ER-1 Return because there was no such column. When all the clearance were within the knowledge of the department and refund was also allowed for the Notification No. 52/94 meant for the same goods i.e. parts of aero-planes and helicopters, knowledge on part of the department could not be brushed aside only on the ground that the refund was made in 1997 and this dispute in this case was for years 2000 to 2004. 2. If wires and cables falling under Heading 85.44 were wrongly classified as parts of aeroplanes and helicopters, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in a case involving dispute of classification (Commissioner V/s. Ishaan Research Lab Pvt. Ltd.- 2008 (230) ELT 7 (page 335 of Paper Book), Shahnaz Ayurvedics- 2004 (173) ELT 337 (All) (page 347 of Paper Book), Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Ltd.- 2001 (131) ELT 662 (page 369 of Paper Book) and Wipro Ltd.- 2005 (179) ELT 211 (page 373 of Paper Book). 3. All the consignments of wires and cables are sold under Central Excise invoices with details of Notification number and reversal of amount at the rate of 8% or 10% (page 61) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of this Tribunal that the appellant is not eligible to clear wires and cables as parts of Aero plane and Helicopter under Notification No. 6/2002. In the impugned order, learned Commissioner has taken a view that appellant procured certificates from the buyers about the use and purpose of the goods to misguide the department that they were parts of the Aero plane and Helicopters even when there was no requirement in the notification to produce buyers certificate. The Commissioner also took a view that appellant had given refund in the year 1997 in respect of duty paid on wires and cables under predecessor Notification to Notification No. 6/2002 is not a valid ground since there was a lot of changes after the sanction of refund. 3. Learned counsel submitted that from the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that they were eligible for exemption under another notification which was predecessor to Notification No. 6/2002 should be considered as a favorable point for not invoking extended period. He drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Mega Air Tech Engineering - 2009 (238) ELT 35 (Gujarat) to support the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
