9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of facts or willful misstatement with intend to evade payment of duty on the part of the appellant - Invoking extended period is not acceptable in the situation presented by the instant case - demand time barred - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/803/2008 - Final Order No. A/31203/16 - Dated:- 16-11-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) Shri. R. Sudhinder, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri. Nagraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is inter alia, engaged in manufacture of Pre-stressed Concrete Pipes, Bar Wrapped Steel Cylinder Pipes and MS Pipes and is registered with the Central Excise Department. They manufacture both dutiable and exempted pipes. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause to the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-I Commissionerate, L.B. Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this notice as to why; i) the amount of ₹ 79,13,674/- (Rupees Seventy nine lakhs thirteen thousand six hundred and seventy four only) being the differential amount not paid by them in terms of Rule 6(3) (b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002/2004 in respect of exempted goods manufactured by utilizing common inputs on which CENVAT credit was availed and cleared by them during the period from March, 2003 to March, 2006 as detailed in Annexure enclosed to the notice should not be recovered from them along with interest in terms of Rule 14 of the CENVAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant to furnish the copy of details of work order along with split-up details of the rate in regard to the work order to the department and that appellant had submitted split-up details of rate in respect of all work orders during the relevant period. Thus, if at all there was error in computing the value of clearances it was only on wrong interpretation of the provision by which the appellant happened to exclude the excise duty while arriving at the value of clearances for the purpose following Rule 6(3) (b) of CENVAT Credit Rules. He submitted that there was no will full intention to evade payment of duty and that therefore the extended period cannot be invoked. That the appellant company was under the bonafide belief that the amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that vide letters dated 29.03.2003, 23.04.2004, 29.04.2004 and 02.06.2004 etc., the appellant has informed the department that they are not keeping separate accounts and also clearing exempted pipes for Government projects. It is also seen stated in these letters that they are clearing the exempted pipes at 8%/10% excise duty after adjusting CENVAT Credit as per Rule 6(3) (b) of CCR, 2002/2004. The appellants have also furnished along with these letters the rates split-up for each work order. Again, in the invoices issued by the appellant to the Government projects they have explicitly stated that 8%/10% is reversed and also stamped on these invoices showing that Rule 6(3) (b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is followed. I have to say th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Continental Foundation JT Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I [2007 (216) ELT 177 (S.C)] held that the expression suppression has been used in the proviso to Section 11A of the Act accompanied by very strong word as fraud or collusion and therefore, has to be construed strictly. Mere omission to give correct information is not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to stop the payment of duty. An incorrect statement or wrong method of computation cannot be equated with willful misstatement. The appellant has submitted details of work order as well as filed the ER-1 returns to the department. It is for the department to conduct scrutiny and call for information from appellant, if not found in order. Invoking extended period is not acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
