9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er brand name "Poonjiaji", "Ashirwad" and "Kitchen King" into domestic tariff area (DTA) discharging concessional rate of duty @ 9% in accordance with Sr. No. 4 of Notification No. 23/2003-CE dated 31.3.2003. Alleging that the product attracts normal rate of duty@ 16% in terms of Sr. No. 3 of Notification 23/2003-CE dated 31.3.2003, as the pickle was cleared bearing 'brand name' in unit containers, being not exempted during the period 28.2.2005 to 28.2.2006, a show-cause notice was issued to them for recovery of the Central Excise duty of Rs. 23,20,564/- with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the adjudicating authority. He observed as follows: - "Form the above, it can be seen that the branded goods of Ch.20 when put up in unit containers were not exempted under the above said Notification and therefore, branded Pickle packed in unit containers and 'bearing a brand name were not exempted. Hence, branded Pickle packed in unit containers are not entitled to benefit of Notification No. 23/2003 CE dated 31.03.2003(Sr.No.4) as claimed by the appellant as branded pickles put up in unit containers manufactured by them are not exempted in terms of Sr. No.9 of Notification No. 312005 -CE dated24.02.2005. They are liable to duty @ 16% ad valorem plus 2%Ed. Cess for the period under contention i.e 28.02.2005 to28.02.2006. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ionally took advantage of exemption. The tact is that the goods under the relevant period were chargeable to duty and were not exempted. Moreover, the fact has been admitted by the factory manager in his statement as detailed in para 6 above. The learned consultant also agreed that there is no dispute as far as merit is concerned. I find that the appellant had full knowledge of the applicability or otherwise of the said Notification and knowingly resorted to claiming benefit by not declaring the true facts. The onus to declare the correct and true information .in theER-2 returns is on the appellant. The field officers are not in a position to know all the activities undertaken by the appellant in absence of incomplete information in theER-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
