TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there is a bonafide belief and the clarification issued by the Bangalore Commissionerate? 2. WHETHER, the CESTAT is right in holding that the Respondent is entitled for the benefit of exemption on the basis of the Certificate said to have been issued by the CSIO Or Aeronautic Development Agency which is not a prescribed authority under the Notification No.10/97-CE dt.01/03/1997? 2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 08.01.2015 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for the sake of brevity), whereby the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has found that only period of one year would be available for limitation and period of five years would....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... me a report as to the background factors leading to this problem so as to examine methods to ensure that such unnecessary problems are not created in future." (Emphasis Supplied) 4. It appears that based on the same, the respondent claimed exemption. However, subsequently, the demand notice was made for covering the period as if five years period of limitation was available and the demand was confirmed by the competent authority. The matter was carried before the higher forum and ultimately before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the period of limitation available would be of only one year and not five years because of the bonafide act on the part of the respondent herein to clear the goods as if exempted and therefore the Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 28.10.2013 has also verified the said certificates and has reported that the same appears to be adequate. 10. In view of the foregoing, demand cannot be held sustainable on the point of limitation itself. As regards the benefit of Notification No.6/2006-CE learned advocate submits that they are not aware as to whether M/s.HAL would use the goods for repair, maintenance or for further manufacture of the goods. On being informed by M/s. HAL and as certified by them that the goods would be used for maintenance and repair, they have claimed the benefit of the said notification and if M/s. HAL and as certified by them that the goods would be used for maintenance and repair, they have claimed the benefit of the said notification and if M/s. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty under clause (b) of sub-section (1), shall inform the Central Excise Officer of such payment in writing, who, on receipt of such information, shall not serve any notice under clause (a) of that sub-section in respect of the duty so paid or any penalty leviable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder. (3) Where the Central Excise Officer is of the opinion that the amount paid under clause (b) of sub-section (1) falls short of the amount actually payable, then, he shall proceed to issue the notice as provided for in clause (a) of that sub-section in respect of such amount which falls short of the amount actually payable in the manner specified under that sub-section and the period of one year shall be computed from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. As such, in our view, whether this is a case of fraud or collusion or any wilful mis-statement of consideration of material facts or contravention of provisions of the Act or the Rules with an intent to evade payment of duty are essentially the question of fact wherein ultimate fact finding conclusion is to be recorded depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If the matter is to rest on the ultimate fact finding conclusion for which the Tribunal is the final fact finding authority, there would not be any question of law which may arise for consideration, since the present appeal has to be limited to question of law only and not on the question of fact, unle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edule in the Notification No.63/1995 dated 16.03.1995. The said notification uses the same language which reads as under: "If manufactured by the following units and are for supply to the Ministry of Defence for official purposes". 12. The only difference in the Notification dated 16.03.1995 is that the number of units are added upto 7 whereas, in the Notification dated 01.03.1986, the number of units were only 4. It is apparent that there is no change in the language used in both the notifications for the purpose of grant of exemption. Not only that but for the very language used, in the earlier notification dated 01.03.1986, the interpretation thereafter is already made by the Central Board of Customs & Central Excise vide Circular ....