9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision in Notification No.67/95-CE for discharge of a sum @8% on the value of the final products which were chargeable to ‘nil' rate of duty or exempted from payment of duty - the contention of the appellant that, they were discharging a sum @8% on the value of the exempted final products would entitle them to the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-CE is without any merit. Demand Time-Barred – Held that:- The period of demand pertains to April 2000 to May, 2001 and the show cause notice has been issued only on 30/04/2005 - the allegation that the appellant suppressed the facts from the Revenue with intent to evade payment of excise duty is not sustainable in law - If the applicant has not indulged in suppression of facts, there is no reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factured by them, the appellant paid an amount @ 8% of the value of the rectified spirit as envisaged under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The said rule applies to a situation where dutiable and exempted products are manufactured and inputs on which credit is taken is utilised in such manufacturing and no separate accounts are maintained on the issue and consumption of duty paid inputs in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted final products. The department was of the view that since molasses is being utilised in the manufacture of dutiable acetic acid and exempted rectified spirit and no duty liability has been discharged on the molasses under Notification No.67/95-CE, availment of exemption on molasses is incorrect inasmuch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue neutrality. Therefore, in the absence of any loss to the exchequer, the question of demand of any duty on molasses captively consumed does not arise and hence question of imposing any penalty also would not arise. Accordingly, he pleads for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. He also submits that in the adjudication order, the learned adjudicating authority has given a finding that the appellant have deliberately defied the directions of the department to the appellant for discharging duty liability on molasses captively consumed. He relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification No. 67/95-CE is without any merit and we reject the same. 5.2 However, as regards the contention of the appellant that the entire demand is time-barred, there is merit. In the present case, the period of demand pertains to April 2000 to May, 2001 and the show cause notice has been issued only on 30/04/2005, after a lapse of almost four years. Further, we find that, in the RT-12 returns filed by the appellant during the period, the appellant had declared in the said returns that they were clearing rectified spirit on payment of a sum @ 8% and they were also availing duty exemption on molasses under Notification No. 67/95-CE. Therefore, the allegation that the appellant suppressed the facts from the Revenue with an intent to evade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
