9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim erroneous benefit. Interestingly the appellant has also produced a letter dated 27.10.2009 from the Board to Chief Commissioner, LTU Bangalore clarifying that vendors would not be covered by the notification. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that appellants are not entitled to the benefit of exemption under the notification 63/95. Hence on merits the appellants do not have a case. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - the appellant had all along kept the department informed about the availment of benefit under the notification, not only through their monthly returns but also in written communication to the jurisdictional Range superintendant. On such score, the SCN covering the period December 2009 to February 2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Availment of exemption is not applicable to the supplies made by the appellants, and is available only to those goods manufactured by BEL, but not to the vendors; (b) Benefit of exemption under Notification No. 63/95-CE dt. 16.03.1995 cannot be extended as per Board s letter in F.No. 110/32/2009-CX-3 dt. 27-10-2009; (c) That goods were cleared without payment of duty against Board s Circular with a mala fide intention to evade payment of duty, hence extended time was invoked under proviso to Section 11A of the Act; (d) Since the facts were suppressed with intent to avail the ineligible benefit, liable to penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. 2. On adjudication vide order dated 16.09.2014 the adjudicating authority confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial purposes. There is no extension of this benefit to vendors or job workers. The appellants argument that they started availing exemption after clarification by a department officer will not help their case. An erroneous clarification cannot be taken shelter of to claim erroneous benefit. Interestingly the appellant has also produced a letter dated 27.10.2009 from the Board to Chief Commissioner, LTU Bangalore clarifying that vendors would not be covered by the notification. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that appellants are not entitled to the benefit of exemption under the notification 63/95. Hence on merits the appellants do not have a case. 6. Coming to the issue of limitation, it is however seen that, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
