TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 65
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficers on 08/10/2004, it appeared to the officers that the value of clearance of all excisable goods had exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs. 3 crores during the previous year. Accordingly, it appeared that the appellant was not entitled to SSI exemption and duty was levied. Accordingly show cause notice dated 14/09/2005 was issued wherein their turnover for the period 2002-03 was found as under:- TOTAL SALE OF ALL EXCISABLE GOODS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 Sl. No. Description of goods Sales Amount (in Rs.) 1 Spices (Paras Brand) Rs.13,78,60,350/- 2. Nutree (Paras Brand) Rs.12,19,374/- 3. Gulab Jamun Mix (Paras Brand) Rs.17,35,895/- Total Rs.14,08,15,619/- 2. It further appeared to Revenue that the total turno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o impose penalty. 4. The appellant had contested the show cause notice and among other grounds also taken the ground that the extended period of limitation was not invocable as there was no suppression of facts from the Revenue and the appellant had filed the required declaration in the prescribed format before Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Division-III, Kanpur stating that they have not taken to apply for Central Excise Registration Certificate in proper format as soon as value of goods mentioned in the said Schedule cleared for home consumption for the Financial Year which is full of exemption limit. The said intimation bears the acknowledgement of the office of the concerned Deputy Commissioner dated 15/04/2003. In the said decl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in the aforesaid period." He was further queried whether the stamp appearing on the photocopy of declaration dated 10/04/2003 (Copy enclosed) is that which was being used in the relevant period and whether the signature appearing on the receipt is of the person posted in that branch at the relevant time. In reply to these queries the A. O. Central Excise Division-III, Kanpur informed vide his letter dated 18/07/2007 that as per office record impression of rubber stamp used in the month of April'2003 and used in the declaration dated 01/04/2003 are different. Further he also denied the signature of the officer posted in the dispatch branch to be of the signature appearing on the declaration dated 10/04/2003 and stated it to be differ....