Solar power component manufacturer loses exemption appeal due to mis-declared goods description in ER-1 returns

The CESTAT Bangalore upheld the denial of exemption under N/N.12/2012-CE and confirmed demand with extended limitation period. The appellant manufactured solar power components but mis-declared goods description in ER-1 returns as "power, ELE, Solar" instead of correct descriptions like "Solar Inverters, Combiner Box/Array Guard, PV Logs." Following SC precedent in Urmin Products case, mis-declaration justified extended limitation period. While demand and extended period were upheld, the appellant was granted opportunity to pay outstanding interest within 30 days to avail 25% reduced penalty under Section 11AC(1)(c). Appeal disposed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012.
2. Invocation of extended period of limitation for demand confirmation.
3. Calculation and communication of interest liability and penalty reduction under Section 11AC(1)(c).

Summary:

1. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE:

The appellants, engaged in manufacturing Telecom Power Supply System Assembly, Power Controllers, and solar inverters, availed exemption u/s Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. The Department alleged that the items manufactured were parts of the Solar Power Generating System and not eligible for the exemption, leading to a demand of Rs.10,00,32,771/- along with interest and penalty. The Tribunal referenced the Principal Bench's judgment in Raydean Industries, which clarified that parts of Solar Power Generating System are not eligible for the exemption unless consumed within the factory of production. Therefore, the parts manufactured by the appellant were not eligible for the exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE.

2. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:

The appellant argued that the show-cause notice was barred by limitation, citing no wilful suppression of facts and bona fide belief in eligibility for exemption. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant mis-declared the description of goods in their ER-1 returns, which amounted to suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal upheld the invocation of the extended period of limitation, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in CCE, Ahmedabad Vs. Urmin Products P. Ltd. & others.

3. Calculation and Communication of Interest Liability and Penalty Reduction:

The Tribunal noted that although the appellant deposited the duty amount in August 2014, the interest liability was not calculated in the impugned order. Consequently, the appellant could not avail the reduced penalty of 25% under Section 11AC(1)(c). The Tribunal directed that the interest amount be communicated to the appellant, and if paid within 30 days, the benefit of reduced penalty should be extended.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the order denying the exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE and confirming the demand with the extended period of limitation. The appeal was disposed of with a modification to allow the appellant a fair chance to pay the interest and avail the reduced penalty.

---