TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... falling under the heading 7307 to 7311 subject to conditions that "(i) goods are manufactured by a factory belonging to the Central Government; (ii) the goods are intended to be made available to any Department either directly or under any arrangement through Indian Railway Finance Corporation Ltd. being company incorporated and registered under Companies Act, 1956; and (iii) the said goods are intended for use by any Department of the Central Government". Though, the appellant is not a factory belonging to the Central Government and had supplied the ammunition boxes to the ordnance factories against supply order placed by them, the appellant under their letter dated 11-6-2001 had informed the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner giving the details of their factory and the goods being manufactured by them, that they are availing of the exemption under Notification No. 8/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001 (SSI Exemption) and that since the total quantity of ammunition boxes is being supplied to Defence, they are also fully exempt from excise duty under Notification No. 62/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995. Similar declaration had been made for 2002-2003 on 8-4-2002 wherein the appellant informed the J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 24-8-2006. 1.4 The appellant, thereafter, filed appeals against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide final order No. 50285-50286/2014, dated 16-1-2014 while upholding the duty demand on merits, set aside the penalty on the appellant firm under Section 11AC, observing that since, the appellant had informed the Department about their claim of exemption while exercising the option to avail SSI exemption and this remains undisputed the levy of penalty is not warranted. Beside this, the Tribunal also set aside the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on Sh. M.S. Sawhney, partner of the appellant firm, on the ground that the elements required for invoking of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, are not present. 1.5 The appellant firm challenged this order of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly upheld the duty demand, as the same is time barred, inasmuch as, the elements required for invoking proviso to Section 11A(l) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not present, in view of the fact that the Tribunal in the same order has given a finding that there was no suppression o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te, the ld. Counsel of the appellant, pleaded that the duty demand for the period from 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 has been raised vide show cause notice dated 1-4-2005 and the same can be upheld only when the circumstances mentioned in the proviso to Section 11A(l) of the Act are present, that in this case, the appellant under their letters dated 11-6-2001 and 8-4-2002 addressed to the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner had informed him that while they are availing of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2001-C.E. and 8/2002-C.E. the goods manufactured by them being supplied to the Defence are also fully exempt from duty under Notification No. 62/95-C.E. that there was absolutely no response from the Department in respect of these communications of the appellant and hence, the appellant were under bona fide belief that once they cross the SSI exemption limit, the goods supplied by them to Defence would be fully exempt from duty under Notification No. 62/95-C.E. that another manufacturer of the same goods M/s. Jai Forging and Stamping (P) Ltd. located in industrial area, Yamuna Nagar and falling within the jurisdiction of same Deputy Commissioner, had sought clarification from the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilable only to the goods manufactured by a factory belonging to the Central Government and which are intended to be supplied to Central Government for its use, that in view of this, the claim of this exemption by the appellant company itself amounts to wilful misstatement, that the appellant in respect of the 2002-2003 period had claimed trading of the goods valued at Rs. 33,25,937/- which were claimed to have been purchased by them from various traders, namely, M/s. PH Steels, M/s. Jay Gee Steels, M/s. S.N. Traders and M/s. Ranji Products, but on inquiry with these traders, it was found that those traders had not supplied any such goods to the appellant, that this itself shows the fraudulent intention on the part of the appellant, that the appellant had not obtained Central Excise Registration, that their clearances during 2001-2002 had crossed 1.76 crore and the clearances during 2002-2003 were 2.27 crores while the value of clearenaces elgible for exemption under SSI exemption notification were only Rs. one crore and this also shows that the appellant have suppressed the relevant facts from the Department. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. ....