9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isable goods for home consumption during the preceding financial year (2003-04) had exceeded Rs. 300 Lakhs and it had availed of the said benefit by suppressing this fact. 2. The ld. Advocate for the appellant fairly conceded that as per Notification No.9/03-CE, the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption for the year 2004-05 as the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption from its two units during 2003-04 had exceeded Rs. 300 Lakhs. The ld. Advocate, however, contended that the demand was time barred inasmuch as, the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period of one year and there was no misstatement or suppression of facts as is evident from the fact that (i) the appellant ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that it also suppressed the fact of clearances of excisable goods by its other unit while filing ER-I returns. 4. We have considered the contention of both sides. The ld. Advocate for the appellant fairly concedes that as the clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption from both the units of the appellant during the period 2003-04 exceeded Rs. 300 Lakhs, it was not eligible for the benefit of Notification No.9/2003-CE as the said Notification clearly, interalia, stipulates that the exemption contained therein shall not be available, if the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption from one or more factories by a manufacturer exceeded Rs. 300 Lakhs in the preceding financial year (Paragraph 2 (vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption under Notification No.9/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. It is, therefore, obvious that it was aware of the contents of the said Notification. The fact that it did submit the declaration as per para 2 (ii) of the said Notification further establishes that the appellant had read the Notification. It can be nobody s case that the appellant read the Notification only up to para 2 (ii) and did not read para 2 (vi) of the Notification. Thus, the contention that there is nothing to show that the appellant was aware of condition No.2 (vi) is preposterous. As per the said para 2 (vi), the exemption was not available if the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption by a manufacturer from one or more factories exceeds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the superior court to either add or substitute words in a statute, such right cannot be available to a statutory Tribunal . The reasoning that once knowledge has been acquired by the Department, there is no suppression, and as such, the ordinary statutory period of limitation prescribed under sub-section 1 of Section 11 A would be applicable is fallacious, inasmuch as, once the suppression is admitted merely because the Department acquires knowledge of the irregularities; the suppression would not be obliterated. Thus observing the Hon ble Gujarat High Court set aside the order of CESTAT. 7. In the light of the foregoing analysis, we are of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any such infirmity as to require appellate int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
