9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue : Shri Pawan Kumar, Superintendent (AR) For the Assessee : Shri M.V.S. Prasad, Advocate ORDER PER: M.V. RAVINDRAN This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in- Appeal No. 45/2008 (H-IV) CE dated 30.09.2008. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue involved in this case is regarding denial of SSI exemption to the appellant on the ground that for the year 2003-2004 he has exceeded the SSI limit by not declaring the value of exempted goods manufactured and cleared so also for the subsequent period. For the period 2003-2004 to 2006-2007 (up to September, 2006), it is the case of the Revenue in the show cause notice that the appellant had crossed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the SSI exemption threshold limit. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that the issue involved is whether respondent had suppressed any facts with intention to evade payment of duty and availed ineligible SSI exemption by not showing value of non-dutiable goods in the ER-1 s. He submits that the First Appellate Authority in paragraph No. 5 has come to a correct conclusion and nothing prevented the lower authorities to seek information from the respondent. It is his submission that the respondent was under bonafide belief that non-dutiable vaccines are not excisable goods mentioned in clause (vii) of para 2 of SSI exemption notification and acted accordingly and hence it cannot be held that they had intentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department from verifying the value of clearances once the ER1s indicated the manufacture of the exempted goods and the fact of manufacture of the exempted goods were intimated to the department from time to time. Once it was in the knowledge of the department that the appellants were operating under the SSI scheme and manufacturing exempted goods also, the onus shifts on to the department to cross check the facts. In such a situation, it is totally unfair to cast aspersions on the appellants. The reliance placed by the lower authority on the judgment in the case of V. Ramakrishna Rao Vs. CCE, Hyderabad is thoroughly misplaced as the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable. For invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Act, ibid, m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
