TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1409
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exemption benefit under Notification No.8/2001, 8/2002 and 8/2003 upto Rs. 100 lakhs, on the clearance of the goods on their own account and paid duty in respect of clearance of the goods bearing brand name of the loan licensee. According to the Revenue, the Appellant is eligible to avail the exemption benefit in respect of the clearance of the goods bearing the brand name of the loan licensee as the factory is situated in rural area. 2. A Show Cause Notice dt.18.01.2007 was issued, proposing demand of duty along with interest and to impose penalty for the period from 2001-02 to 2005-06 on the ground that by clubbing clearance value of the goods being brand name of loan licencee would exceed Rs. 100 lakhs. By the impugned order, the Adju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and anybody has access to this information. It was open to the Departmental officers to verify about this fact. Moreover, on going through the ER-1 returns filed by the noticee, it is seen that the clearances of the branded goods (on loan licence) and the clearances of the noticee's own manufactured goods are separately given. By simply adding the two, the Department could have found what were the total clearances from the unit. The basis of the show cause notice does not contain any information which was in the exclusive possession of the noticee and not the Department. Therefore, it cannot be said that any facts were suppressed from the Department. Therefore, it cannot be said that any facts were suppressed from the Department. In view of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellants has suppressed the fact that their factory was located in rural area, cannot be upheld inasmuch as the said fact is not capable of being suppressed. Revenue was very well aware of location of their factory and as such, it cannot be said that there was any suppression on their part. Arguing on merit, learned advocate has drawn our attention to the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in case of M/s. Kline Chemicals P. Ltd. (Order No. A/1460/WZB/AHD/2008, dt. 29-7-08), [2009 (237) E.L.T. 405 (T)] wherein after taking note of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in case of CCE, Coimbatore v. M/s. Marutham Textiles (P) Ltd., 2003 (153) E.L.T. 219 (Tri.-LB), it was held that the duty paid on the clearances, which the Revenue ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee on the ground that they have not declared that they cleared the sewing thread manufactured in the form of hanks in the declaration and RT 12 return being vital documents submitted by the Assessee. In the case of Dewas Metal Sections Ltd (supra), the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee on the ground that cost of extra raw material was not disclosed in the return and the extended period of limitation would be invoked. In the present case, the Appellant had disclosed the location of the factory, clearance of goods on payment of duty separately in the ER-1 return. In any event, the Appellant cleared the goods bearing brand name of the loan licensee and declared i....