TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 25
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n under similar circumstances, this Hon'ble Court has held that the extended period of time limit is not applicable. 3.Whether the impugned order is outside the scope of Show Cause Notice when there is no allegation or foundation for sustaining the reasoning of the impugned order? 4.Whether the impugned order is correct in ignoring the submissions of the Appellant that when the decisions of the Tribunal were in favour of the Appellant and ultimately the merits of the issue was finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the Appellant, the extended period cannot be invoked?" 2.The respondent Department issued a show cause notice to the appellant assessee dated 09.08.2000 inter alia alleging that the assessee has contravened the provisions of Central Excise Rules inasmuch as they have manufactured and cleared the excisable goods with brand name 'Cansoft', which belongs to another manufacturer, without payment of excise duty and without following excise procedures. The facts of the case were furnished in the form to an annexure to the show cause notice. The assessee was directed to show cause as to why the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the submissions made in the written reply given by the assessee to the show cause notice. The Adjudicating Authority namely, Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, by order in original dated 28.03.2001 rejected the contentions raised by the assessee and confirmed the demand in the show cause notice dated 09.08.2000. Apart from denying the claim for SSI exemption under notification Nos.1/93 and 7/97 as amended, it was held that show cause notice is not time barred as the assessee had not filed any declaration to the Department declaring the product manufactured by them as required under notification No.13/92 as amended in order to claim exemption from registration from the Department. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority came to the conclusion that assessee had suppressed information to the Department and therefore, demand in the show cause notice is sustainable. 5.The assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore, which was dismissed by the order dated 07.04.2003. Against the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by final order dated 13.02.2004 allowed the appeal filed by the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and sought for waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal vide order dated 20.03.2012 directed the assessee to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- within a period of six weeks. Challenging the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before this Court in C.M.A.No.3691 of 2013 contending that the Tribunal was not justified in directing the assessee to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The Division Bench, to which one of us as a party (T.S.S.J.) disposed of the appeal by judgment dated 05.02.2004 to take up the appeal on merits on the ground that in the case of M/S. Data Tech Systems Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, an order was passed, which was placed before the Tribunal by the assessee, which was not considered by the Tribunal, while taking a decision on the issue relating to pre-deposit. Pursuant to the said judgment, the Tribunal took up the matter for hearing and has dismissed the appeal holding that the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked, however, remanded the matter for reconsideration of demand. Aggrieved by the said order dated 03.11.2017, the assessee is before us by way of this appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not figure in the show cause notice issued to the assessee. Thus, it is submitted that the Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. Further, it is submitted that the second proviso to notification No.22/98, dated 04.06.1998 clearly states that no declaration is required to be filed by the assessee, if it is SSI unit and they are entitled for full exemption limit. 9.The revenue seeks to sustain the order passed by the Tribunal contending that it had rightly applied the decision in the case of Ramply (India) Limited and held that the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked. Further, it is submitted that the assessee was not justified in stating that he is not required to file any declaration, since notification No.22/98 provides for filing a declaration and earlier notification namely, notification No.13/92, dated, 14.05.1992 also makes it necessary to file a declaration. It is further submitted that the contention of the assessee that because the legal issue attained finality only after the decision in the case of Grasim Industries Limited, is incorrect submission and it was never the case of the assessee before the Department and a new case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of its goods, it used the brand name ''Micro'', which was, admittedly, the brand name of another sister concern. The assessee had been claiming exemption from excise duty, as it was a SSI unit and it did not get itself registered with the Central Excise Authorities. They claimed that since, their clearance is below the sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-, there is no need to register itself with the Central Excise Authorities. The Central Excise Authorities on coming to know about the clearances effected by the said assessee without payment of duty, issued show cause notice proposing to deny exemption from excise duty and also levy penalty. The show cause notice was adjudicated and the order in original was in favour of the assessee. 12.The Revenue being aggrieved by such order, preferred an appeal to the First Appellate Authority and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The Revenue filed further appeal before the Tribunal. In such appeal, the assessee preferred cross objections raising the issue of limitation. The Tribunal reversed the view of the Adjudicating Authority and the First Appellate Authority. The issue, which was taken up for consideration, was whether the exte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise Act, as the case may be. The notification further states that the manufacturer who makes a declaration and gives an undertaking as specified in the Form annexed along with the notification while claiming exemption under this notification. The second proviso under the notification states that where the exemption from the whole of the duty of excise leviable on the said goods is granted, based on the value of the clearances made in a financial year, no such declaration shall be filed, if the aggregate value of the said goods is cleared by a manufacturer from one or more factories, or from any factory by one or more manufacturers, for home consumption, was less than the specified limit during the preceding financial year or in case of a new factory or manufacturer, such value of clearances is estimated to remain less than the specified limit during the current financial year. Thus, in terms of the notification, where exemption from whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon is granted based on the factors mentioned, the manufacturer who makes a declaration and gives an undertaking in the specified form while claiming exemption under this notification. The second proviso dispense....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bags of cement manufactured by them, they used the words "Manufactured by Dharani Cements Ltd. A subsidiary of Grasim Industries Ltd." The Tribunal by following the decision in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Vs Collector of Central Excise reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 214 (SC), held that the benefit of notification No.5/98 (CE), dated 02.06.1998 is not lost by the assessee, because they show on their product the name of the holding company namely, M/s.Grasim Industries Limited. The Revenue challenging the correctness of the finding, contended that the assessee by using the name of Grasim Industries with the purpose of indicating a connection between the product i.e., cement manufactured by them and M/s.Grasim Industries Ltd. The assessee contended that the words ''Grasim Industries Limited'' are neither a brand name nor a trade name. The Honourable Supreme Court after examining the facts, pointed out that it is clear that the assessee was using the trade name of some other company with the purpose of indicating a connection in the course of trade between the product and that person and the assessee was therefore, clearly not entitled to the benefi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was not aware of the Central Excise procedures. However, the assessee admitted that the brand name did not belong to them. Thus, the Appellate Authority held that the assessee being a manufacturer doing business for several years, he is expected to be aware of the duty liability on the goods manufactured by him and also the Central Excise procedure. It is further pointed out that, but for the investigation conducted by the officers, the usage of the brand name by the assessee would not have come to notice and therefore extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is invokable. Thus, the Appellate Authority held that the assessee has suppressed the fact to the department and the extended period was rightly invoked and the same is legal. 18.The original authority in his order dated 28.03.2001 considered this question as to whether the show cause notice is barred by limitation as the assessee contended that there was no suppression of information with an intention to evade payment of duty and there is no malafide intention. The original authority held that the said contention of the assessee is incorrect, since the assessee had not filed any declaration to the ....