9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied in proceeding on the basis that it was exempted from excise duty – Relying upon CCE, Jaipur vs. J.K. Synthetics [1999 (10) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - when there are divergent views of High Courts, benefit of doubt as to non dutiability of the goods, can be entertained by the assessee, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked by the Revenue. There was sufficient reason for the appellant to exercise bonafide belief as regard availability of exemption notification - The contention that the fact of using brand name was not intimated to the Revenue, cannot be appreciated, inasmuch as such non intimation was also on bonafide belief, which stands formed by the assessee - a part of the demand would fall within the limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owner for further manufacture of torch, the appellant was not following the procedure laid down in Chapter X of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. In view of above, the Revenue entertained view that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of notification and accordingly initiated the proceedings against them for recovery of dues by way of issue of show cause notice dated 10.2.2000. The said SCN raised the demand for the period March, 1998 to September, 1999. The said demand stands confirmed by the original adjudicating authority and the same was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. The appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal came up for disposal, the Bench observed that there were conflicting decisions on the point of following t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them on the said branded goods. For the above proposition. He has relied upon the various decisions. 8. Countering the arguments, the ld.DR appearing of the Revenue submits that the appellant in their declaration filed with the Revenue have not disclosed the fact that they were manufacturing branded goods. They never got registration with the department. As such, the Revenue was not aware of the fact of manufacture of electrical bulbs under the brand name of other persons. In this scenario, ld.DR submit that the department was justified in invoking longer period of limitation. 9. For resolving the dispute, we would first like to refer to some of the judgments which were prevailing during the relevant period. Though, there are a number of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for invoking longer period of limitation. For the said purpose, we may refer to Delhi High Court's decision in the case of CCE vs. Wonderax Laboratories, IPL-2010 (255) ELT 60 (Del.) . It stands held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, that when there was conflicting views among different benches of the Tribunal, which was resolved much later, then during the relevant period, the assessee is held to be justified in proceeding on the basis that it was exempted from excise duty. The issue involved in the present appeal was also relatable to SSI exemption of Notification No.1/93 in respect of branded goods. The said decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court stands upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court when the appeal filed by Revenue was rejected as reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
