9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT for short). 3. On 25.7.1999, a show cause notice was issued by the department to the respondent - assessee for recovery of duty Rs.17,98,695/-alongwith equal amount of penalty imposable u/s 11-AC and Rule 173-Q, alongwith interest u/s 11-AB. By his order dated 29.5.2000, Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Nasik, confirmed the amount, but imposed the penalty of Rs.10,12,027/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Mumbai. Learned Commissioner allowed the appeal on 26.12.2000, set aside the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Nasik. The department approached CESTAT by further appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... small scale industry (SSI) unit. The show cause notice and further proceedings were as a result of this belief of the department. 5. Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Nasik, held that the said goods can not be termed as branded goods since those goods were not traded by the assessee, but were used in the manufacturing stream in the manufacture of final products. It was also observed that the customers had not given instructions to put the marks or stickers on the M.V. parts, but those were put by the assessee - manufacturer in order to distinguish those as the manufacture for complying with the orders of three customers viz. Bajaj Auto, Kinetic Engineering and Rajkumar Engineering respectively. The Additional Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee unless the omission is deliberate and for the purpose of escaping from payment of duty. It was held that expression "suppression of facts" in proviso to Section 11-A(1) is required to be interpreted strictly because it has been used in the company of strong words, such as fraud, collusion or wilful default. It was further held that where facts are known to both the parties, the omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have done, does not render it suppression of fact. So far as the case before him, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that appellants were manufacturers of automobile parts both branded, which was not owned by them and their own goods for supplies to local market was informat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it the factory, verify the manufacturing process and certify about correctness of the declaration under Rule 173-B and applicability of exemption notifications. In view of these statutory insulations available against any mis-declaration by the assessee, it was held that the department was not at liberty to apply the extended period of limitation nor assessee could be charged of being guilty of suppression of fact or supply of false information. For the reasons discussed in paras 7 8, the learned Commissioner also arrived at a conclusion that the products are branded goods. Naturally, the entire order including the demand for duty, penalty and interest was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. The Tribunal has concurred with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
