2018 (3) TMI 171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uthority incorrectly set aside the Order-in-Original that confirmed the demands by invoking extended period. 4. In the case in hand, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands raised for the period 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 holding that the respondents herein are ineligible to avail the benefit of SSI exemption as they have crossed the limit by manufacturing exempted products during the period. The First Appellate Authority has relied upon three letters by the respondents to the incharge of Superintendent and he set aside the demand beyond the normal period but upheld the demands within the normal period from the date of show cause notice. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel that their appeal against the demand raise....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....omputation of the value of clearances made during the relevant financial years the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of small scale exemption. The appellant, on the other hand, are relying on their letters dated 12.05.2003, 16.1.2004 and 02.02.2004 bringing to the notice of the of the Department the fact of manufacture of chappals with the brand name 'PARAGON' and therefore the allegation of suppression of facts cannot be held against them. In the show cause notice dated 22.12.2006, the Department had alleged suppression of facts and invoked extended time limit for demanding duties for the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 (upto October, 2006). The Department has made two grounds on which the SSI exemption has been s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....had clearly indicated the fact of manufacture and the availment of the exemption interms of Notification No.08/2003, it was for the Department to probe or seek for further information in case it was felt that there was a need to satisfy about the entitlement of the appellants to the benefit of the Small Scale Exemption. Not only that, no questions were asked during the material time when the appellants had brought to the notice of the Department their activities. It appears that even the ER-3 Returns filed by the appellants had gone without any scrutiny despite the contents of various letters written by the appellants. The original adjudicating authority in para 16 of his order observes as follows: "I have gone through the ER-3 submitted ....