Assessee eligible for exemption under specific notifications; demand upheld, extended period inapplicable. Appeals allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Notification 6/2006-CE and 12/2012-CE as the cleared parts constituted a complete boiler. The demand for the normal period was upheld, and the extended period was deemed inapplicable due to the absence of suppression of facts. The appeals by the assessee were allowed, while those by the department were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification 6/2006-CE and 12/2012-CE.
2. Invocation of the extended period for demand.

Summary:

Issue 1: Eligibility for Exemption under Notification 6/2006-CE and 12/2012-CE

The core issue was whether the assessee was eligible for exemption under Notification 6/2006-CE and its subsequent amendment, Notification 12/2012-CE. The department contended that the assessee had cleared parts of boilers, not complete boilers, thus not qualifying for the exemption. The assessee argued that they received orders for complete boilers, which were then manufactured in parts by different units due to space constraints and later assembled at the customer's site. The assessee cited Trade Notice No.40/92 and previous favorable judgments, including a Supreme Court decision, to support that parts cleared for assembling into a complete boiler at the customer's site should qualify for the exemption. The Tribunal held that the parts cleared by the assessee constituted a complete boiler, thus eligible for the exemption under the notifications.

Issue 2: Invocation of the Extended Period for Demand

The department issued show cause notices proposing to deny the exemption and demand duty for an extended period, alleging suppression of facts. The adjudicating authority, however, found no misstatement or suppression of facts, restricting the demand to the normal period. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the assessee had regularly informed the department about their manufacturing activities, and audits had been conducted without raising this issue previously. Therefore, the extended period for demand was not invocable.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was eligible for the exemption under Notification 6/2006-CE and 12/2012-CE as the parts cleared constituted a complete boiler. The demand for the normal period was set aside, and the extended period was not invocable due to the lack of suppression of facts. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and those by the department were dismissed.

---