9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to do so - There is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant therefore, the demand invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) could not have been made - appeal is allowed on the ground of limitation, without going into merit of the case. - E/1179/07 - A/85629/17/EB - Dated:- 2-2-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Manoj Chauhan, CA for the appellant Shri H.M. Dixit, AC (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the appellant supplied the goods under notification 64/95 dated 16.03.1995 to Government of India, Department of Space, SHAR Centre for use in sub-system of GSLV Launch Vehicle Project for research and development purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th declaration under 173B. Therefore the appellants have declared that they are claiming the exemption notification. Hence there was no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. The clearance of the goods was made on 08.03.2001 whereas the show-cause notice was issued on 30.09.2003 i.e. much after one year period from the relevant date. Therefore the show-cause notice was time barred. He places reliance on the following judgments. * Asian Paints (I) Ltd. 2013 (289) ELT 338 (Tri-Mum) * Mega Air Tech Engineers 2009 (240) ELT 376 (Tri-Ahmd) * Prince Rollings (P) Ltd. 2007 (213) ELT 623 (Tri-Bang) 3. Shri H.M. Dixit, ld. Asstt. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , AP. The SHAR centre has issued certificate to the effect that these goods are eligible for benefit of exemption under notification no. 64/95. The assessee has also filed a declaration under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and has enclosed the certificates received from the SHAR centre along with the declaration under Rule 173B. Thus, all facts regarding clearance of goods have been disclosed to the excise authorities. Hence, there was no reason to believe that there is a suppression of facts. As mentioned in the reply to the show-cause notice by the assessee that there was no reason to believe that there is a malafide intention to evade the duty. From the above finding also it is absolutely clear that the original authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
