2018 (9) TMI 745

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se is regarding denial of SSI exemption to the appellant on the ground that for the year 2003-2004 he has exceeded the SSI limit by not declaring the value of exempted goods manufactured and cleared so also for the subsequent period. For the period 2003-2004 to 2006-2007 (up to September, 2006), it is the case of the Revenue in the show cause notice that the appellant had crossed the threshold limit of Rs. 300 Cr during the year 2002-2003 and has wrongly availed SSI benefit for the subsequent years and subsequent years also did not declare the value of clearances of vaccines which are exempted from payment of duty. Adjudicating Authority after following due process of law, confirmed the demands raised. Aggrieved by such an order, an appeal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....No. 5 has come to a correct conclusion and nothing prevented the lower authorities to seek information from the respondent. It is his submission that the respondent was under bonafide belief that non-dutiable vaccines are not excisable goods mentioned in clause (vii) of para 2 of SSI exemption notification and acted accordingly and hence it cannot be held that they had intention to evade duty. 6. On careful consideration of submissions made by both sides, we find that the findings of the First Appellate Authority in respect of the extended period cannot be invoked in the case in hand is in paragraph No. 5 which is reproduced: "5. As seen from the case records and the submissions made by the appellants, it is evident that they we....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... shifts on to the department to cross check the facts. In such a situation, it is totally unfair to cast aspersions on the appellants. The reliance placed by the lower authority on the judgment in the case of V. Ramakrishna Rao Vs. CCE, Hyderabad is thoroughly misplaced as the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable. For invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Act, ibid, mens rea is an essential ingredient which is clearly absent in the present case. Hence, I hold that the demand is clearly hit by limitation of time." 7. In our view, the above said factual findings are not countered effectively in the appeal memorandum. 8. Reliance placed by the Learned Departmental Representative on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case ....