9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired before he is saddled with any liability. In the present case, Revenue has alleged that there was suppression on the part of the appellant due to non-registering themselves with the Department. The said reason is not sufficient to invoke extended period of limitation. When Revenue came to know about the manufacture of packaged drinking water by the appellant in the month of May 2009, then they should have issued Show Cause Notice raising the demand to the appellant within a period of one year from May 2009. Since the demand was raised after May 2010, i.e. on 03.11.2010, therefore the same is hit by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 139 of 2012 - FINAL ORDER NO. 40705/2020 - Dated: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osals for imposition of penalties. 2.2 On contest by the appellant, the said Show Cause Notice was adjudicated through impugned Order-in-Original. The Learned Original Authority held that the appellant did not initiate any steps to get required clarification from the Department to discharge their statutory duty of getting registered including observance of due procedures and payment of duty and therefore, the appellants were guilty of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. He therefore confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants are before this Tribunal. 3.1 We have heard Shri. V. Ravindran, Learned Counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that the Original Authority d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a deliberate intention to prove suppression. He has submitted that the Show Cause Notice was based on the information available in the books of accounts of the appellant and therefore, there was no suppression of facts. He has further submitted that there were divergent views in the field on whether packaged drinking water is actually mineral water or not and the Central Board of Excise and Customs had to issue some clarification in this matter, which establishes that there was confusion in the field and therefore intention to evade payment of duty cannot be alleged on the appellant. 4. We have heard Shri. Arul C. Durairaj, Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue. He has supported the impugned order. 5. Having considered th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods on the basis of their belief of the interpretation of the provisions of the law that the exempted goods were not required to be included and these did not include the value of the exempted goods which they manufactured at the relevant time. The Tribunal found that the explanation was plausible, and also noted that the Department had full knowledge of the facts about manufacture of all the goods manufactured by the respondent when the declaration was filed by the respondent. The respondent did not include the value of the product other than those falling under Tariff Item 14E manufactured by the respondent and this was in the knowledge, according to the Tribunal, of the authorities. These findings of the Tribunal have not been challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
