9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact of suppression has been reiterated by all the authorities in their order and the Tribunal has also taken note of the same in coming to its well considered finding. - subsequent information by the assessee to the respondent/Department cannot justify a plea of no suppression. The act of suppression had already happened at the time of clearance of the exempted goods in excess of the exemption limit and, therefore, it is not open to the assessee to plead a case of no suppression. - Decided against assessee. - C.M.A. No. 1764 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 5-6-2015 - R. Sudhakar And K. B. K. Vasuki,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. N.Inbarajan For the Respondents : Mr. K.Mohanamurali, for R-2 JUDGMENT (Delivered By R. Sudhakar, J.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority rejected the plea of no suppression and held as follows :- 16. Since the value of clearance have exceeded the SSI exemption limits during the relevant period, i.e., 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, the noticee is liable to pay duty on the clearance exceeding ₹ 50 Lakhs, the then existing SSI exemption limit. This duty liability is not disputed by the noticee also. In fact in their reply dated 24.03.2003 and as well as during the course of personal hearing on 21.04.2003, the noticee themselves admitted that they are not disputing the demand of duty. 17. So the next question that needs to be decided is whether there are sufficient grounds for invoking the proviso to Section 11A or not. It is an admitted fact that till the Divisiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of duty had already taken place. 18. Hence I reject the contention of M/s.KRIPA that there had been no suppression with intent to evade payment. It is expected of every assessee to determine and discharge his duty liability once the exemption limit is crossed and the law will not help any one who violates them in utter disregard. 19. Having decided that there is sufficient ground for invoking the extended period, the next issue that calls for my decision is the duty liability during 1998-99 with regard to the inclusion of raw material and labour in the value as contested by M/s.KRIPA. It is a well known fact that labour and raw material costs form a major component of the assessable value on which excise duty is discharged. I find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs visited the unit is of no avail, since the contravention of the various Central Excise provisions on account of the wilful non-payment of duty had already taken place. It is evident from the case-records that the appellants had neither taken Central Excise registration nor paid the duty during the relevant time. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Hence I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. 4. Against the said rejection of the appeal, the appellant pursued the matter before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on considering the matter, confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the plea of no suppression advanced by the appellant/assessee. The relevant portion of the order of the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he prescribed longer period of five years applicable in such cases, we are of the view that the demand of duty confirmed by the authorities below is legal and proper and the same requires no interference. Consequently, the demand of interest and imposition of equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Act are also justified. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal, the appellant/assessee is before this Court by filing the present appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/Department and perused the materials available on record. 6. The substantial question raised by the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
