TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 827
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ariff Act, 1985 valued at Rs. 2,59,56,392/- under the guise of exempted goods under SSI exemption as envisaged under Notification No.8/2003-CE dt.01.03.2003 as amended without obtaining Central Excise registration and without payment of Central Excise duty during the period from February 2007 to September 2008. The appellants were not entitled to SSI exemption limit of Rs. 1.5 crores as their products were excluded from SSI exemption scheme as per Notification No. 8/2003-CE dt.01.03.2003 as amended and were required to pay Central Excise duty from the very first clearance as per Section 4A of Central Excise Act 1944 i.e. MRP based valuation vide Notification No.14/2008-CE(NT), dt.01.03.2008. However, the appellant failed to pay duty by wron....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the department and filed a declaration seeking registration. After receipt of such declaration, the departmental authorities subsequently recorded a statement of the partner and held that such product manufactured by the appellant would not get be covered under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. He would submit that the entire case has been made up by the Department after the appellant approached them for registration, hence there is no suppression of facts and more so willful suppression'. It is his submission that the appellant had bonafide belief and had always cleared the goods on invoices and recorded the same in the financial records, which is not disputed and Revenue has not brought forward any contrary evidence. He would rely upon the fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. It is his submission that once there is a statement which accepts non-applicability of benefit of Notification No.8/2003-CE, then the show cause notice issued in 2010 has correctly invoked extended period for confirmation of demand. He would submit that the bonafide belief as propagated by the ld.Counsel would not mean that they could interpret the law to their understanding without taking sufficient care for support of their interpretation; for this proposition he relied upon the judgment of this Bench in the case of HUDCO 2012 (26) STR 531 (Tri-Ahmd) and also the judgment of co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Winner Systems Vs CCE Pune 2005 (191) ELT 1051 (Tri-Mum) and in the case of Tanzeem Screnarts Vs CCE M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Notification No.8/2003-CE. We also find from the records that the main appellant had recorded all the manufacturing activities and all clearances in the books of accounts, which is evident from the fact that show cause notice has been issued based upon such records only. On the background of such factual matrix, we agree that the appellant cannot be charged with willful suppression of the fact with intent to evade payment of duty. This our view is due to the fact that the appellant may have mis-read the notification No.8/2003-CE. In our view, the reading of Notification No.8/2003-CE is itself confusing and may be a situation wherein the appellant, as claimed by the ld. Counsel, are not highly literate. 11. In our considered view, the law....