9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri T. Ramesh, Advocate for the Appellant. Smt. R. Bhagyadevi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per P. G. Chacko, Member (J)] - In adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 29.12.1998 for the period September 1997 to May 1998, the original authority had confirmed against the assessee demand of duty of Rs.64,110/- by invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and had imposed on them equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. The demand of duty was consequential to denial of SSI benefit on the ground such benefit was not admissible to the goods in question which had been cleared under another person's brandname. The extended period of limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds, the duty liability of the assessee stands settled against them. After the remand order dated 8.8.2001 of this Bench, the only surviving issue is whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Act was liable to be invoked in this case. On that issue the lower appellate authority has returned a decision against the assessee, against which the main objection raised in the present appeal of the assessee is that the lower appellate authority acted beyond the scope of the remand order. According to the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have recorded a finding that duty was demandable only for the normal period of six months. In other words, according to the assessee, this Tribunal had already arrived at such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue that, in that declaration, the assessee did not disclose the fact that they intended to clear their product affixed with another person's brandname. It is alleged that this suppression was made with intent to evade payment of duty. We have already found that the assessee's plea of bona fide belief that they were not barred from availing SSI benefit stands proved. Therefore, they cannot be held to have suppressed anything with intent to evade payment of duty. Apparently, it was the above bona fide belief of the assessee that stood in the way of their declaring anything with regard to the branded goods. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside Order-in-Appeal No.322/2003 and hold that there can be no demand of duty from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
