TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... brand name. The appellant took registration on 29/05/2011 declaring manufacturing of branded goods of their own and other brands. They claimed SSI notification No. 08/01-CE dated 01/03/2001 as amended. The benefit of said notification was extended to goods falling under Chapter 62 vide Notification No. 23/2001-CE dated 30/04/2001. The said Notification also amended the Notification No. 08/2001-CE by introducing following proviso in para 3 of the main notification. The para 3 of the proviso to the notification reads as under: "Provided that the clearances for home consumption of goods, whether on payment of duty or otherwise, falling under Chapter 62 of the said First Schedule, between 1st April, 2001 and 30th April, 2001 (both days incl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04/2001. She argued that para 7 of the said circular clarifies that full exemption is available to clearance of Rs. 1 crore beginning with 01/05/2001. She also argued that they had filed a classification list in which they had declared their intention to avail the benefit of the said notification. She argued that the audit was conducted in the year 2002 and the letter of audit dated 22/10/2002 highlighted this argue. However, revenue issued a show-cause notice only on 12/12/2003. She argued that everything was in the knowledge of department and the notice is clearly barred by limitation. 4. The learned AR relies on the impugned order. 5. We have gone through the rival submissions. 6. We find that the Notification No. 08/2001 was am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vides that the value of clearance for home consumption of goods whether on payment of duty or otherwise falling under Chapter 62 of the first Schedule between 01/04/2001 and 30/04/2001 shall be taken into account while computing the aggregate value of clearances at Nil rate of duty under Sl. No. 1 of the said table of the Financial Year 2001-2002. The notification cannot be more clear than this. The CBE&C clarification pointed out by the learned Counsel also says the same thing. Para 7 of the said circular reads as under: "7. Another salient feature is that the benefit of SSI excise duty exemption scheme has been extended to readymade garments. This means that clearances upto Rs. 1 crore beginning with 01/05/2001 in the remaining part of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Notification No. 08/2001 as amended by Notification No. 23/2001. 9. The learned Counsel has asserted that there was no willful mis-statement or suppression of fact of their part. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd., Vs. CCE, Raipur - (2013) 31 taxmann. Com 67 (SC) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pranav Vikas (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi - 2002-(XCI)-GJX-2902-CEGAT. She argued that in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where facts are known to both the parties the omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have done, does not render it suppression. In the case of Pranav Vik....