2018 (6) TMI 1210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (CEA). 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a unit wholly owned and controlled by the Government of Karnataka and are availing the benefit of SSI exemption under Notifications No. 175/86 dt. 01/03/1986, No.01/93 dt. 28/02/1993 and No.08/2002 dt. 01/03/2002 wherein the value of exempted goods was not required to be included for computing the aggregate value of goods of excisable goods during the preceding financial year to determine the eligibility to avail SSI exemption during the succeeding financial year. The benefit of excluding the value of clearances of exempted goods to determine the eligibility of SSI exemption was withdrawn in the new SSI exemption Notification No.8/2003 dt 01/03/2003 and the appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not aware of the changes made in the SSI notification No.8/2003 dt. 01/03/2003 wherein for the purpose of computation of the aggregate value, all clearances during the preceding financial year for determining the eligibility of a manufacturer to avail exemption of Rs.l crore in the subsequent financial year, the value of exempted goods were required to be included. He further submitted that the appellant has been showing the value of exempted goods in their balance sheet which is a public document and therefore the appellant has absolutely no intention to suppress any facts from the Department with intent to evade payment of duty. Further the appellant is a public sector undertaking wholly owned by Government of Karnataka and therefore the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of material on record and decisions relied upon by the appellant, we find that in the present case, the appellant is a wholly owned public sector undertaking of the Government of Karnataka and the Department conducted audit for the period June 2003 to Jun3 2005 and all the documents were supplied to the audit part and the audit party did not find that the appellant has wrongly availed the exemption. Subsequently, the appellant paid the entire duty when they realized that they are not entitled to the exemption. Further we find that the appellant has not suppressed any facts from the Department and they have filed all the documents including the balance sheet, Profit & Loss Account....