TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsideration :- "Whether the issue of show cause after a period of two and half years subsequent to the appellants voluntarily disclosing their affairs, was by itself sufficient for the Hon'ble CESTAT to have set aside the invoking of the extended period of limitation?" 2. The facts, in a nutshell, are as hereunder :- The appellant is a manufacturer of tractor parts, parts of earth moving equipments, steel tables, chairs, etc. For the period 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the appellant crossed the small scale exemption limit. Once the appellant came to know about the crossing of the small scale exemption limit for the above two years, they voluntarily approached the respondent for payment of duty, which they failed to pay earlier. The Depart....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is clear that M/s.KRIPA are aware that they are an SSI unit and they are eligible for a duty exemption upto Rs. 50 lakhs during the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. In fact, Shri P.N.Selvakumar, Managing Director admitted in his statement dated 09.06.2000 that due to pressure of work, they did not file the necessary declaration with the Central Excise authorities as contemplated in the Central Excise Rules. Once it is admitted that duty liability had arisen on their crossing the exemption limits of Rs. 50 lakhs during 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and the assessee knowingly remained silent, the fact of crossing the exemption limit working was not known to the department until the officers visited the factory on 11.5.2000. In these circumstances, I am ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the said order of the adjudicating authority, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), vide order dated 21.5.2004, rejected the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee and held as hereunder :- "The lower authority has held that "In fact Shri P.N.Selvakumar, Managing Director admitted in his statement dated 09.06.2000 that due to pressure of work, they did not file the necessary declaration with the Central Excise authorities as contemplated in the Central Excise Rules. Once it is admitted that duty liability had arisen on their crossing the exemption limits of Rs. 50 lakhs during 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and the assessee knowingly remained silent, the fact of crossing the exemption limit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y on clearances in excess of the exempted production. There was, therefore, a clear case of suppression regarding production in excess of small scale exemption limit and clearance on such excess production without payment of duty. Such suppression cannot be wished away by the belated information given by the appellants to the excise department during the next financial year and to justify a claim that no duty should be levied on the ground of limitation. When there is suppression, the statute provides a time period of five years from the relevant date to raise a duty demand. The demand raised in this case is clearly within the statutory limit of five years, though, it is not known why the departmental authorities took more than two and half....