9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant has also intimated the clearance details in the E.R.-1 returns filed by them. Therefore, it is found that the appellant has not suppressed any information from the department. Thus, the intention to evade payment of duties does not exist in this case. Hence, the demand of Central Excise Duty confirmed in the impugned order by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. The demand in the instant case has been raised for the period from 2005-06 to 2006-07 vide the Show Cause Notice dated 07.04.2010. Thus, the entire demand confirmed in the impugned order is barred by limitation. Hence, the entire demand of duty confirmed in the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of limitation. Since, the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said Notification i.e., if the goods are exempted from the duties of Customs leviable under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and the Additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act when imported into India , is fulfilled. Further, as per Sl. No. 400 of Customs Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 and condition No. 86 appended to that Customs Notification, in order to obtain the above mentioned benefit, the appellant has to fulfil the condition that goods required for setting up of any Mega Power Project, so certified by an officer not below the rank of a joint secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Power. 2.1. In the instant case, M/s. NTPC is the Internat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner has allowed them to remove the goods to the respective projects without payment of duties vide permission letters dated 19.04.2005, 16.05.2005, 13.03.2006 and 06.03.2007. It is also submitted that in every E.R.-1 return, they recorded the particulars of the excisable goods manufactured and cleared without payment of duty as per the permission granted by the Assistant Commissioner. Thus, the appellant submits that they have not suppressed any information from the department and hence suppression of fact with an intention to evade payment of duty does not exist in this case. Accordingly, they submit that the demands confirmed in the impugned order by invoking the extended period of limitation is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05, 13.03.2006 and 06.03.2007 allowing the appellant to remove the goods without payment of duty. For ready reference, copies of two such permission letters dated 16.05.2005 and 13.03.2006 issued by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner are reproduced below : - 8.2. From the permission letters issued by the Assistant Commissioner reproduced above, we observe that the Assistant Commissioner has categorically allowed the appellant to clear the goods without payment of duty and the appellant has also intimated the clearance details in the E.R.-1 returns filed by them. Therefore, we find that the appellant has not suppressed any information from the department. Thus, we hold that intention to evade payment of duties does not exist in this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
