TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 947
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri K.Chowdury, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal : The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of lead acid battery and audit was conducted in the factory of the appellant during last weeks of December, 2008 and 1st week of January, 2009 in the Financial year, 2007-2008. 2.1 Duri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the plea that they are entitled to such exemption on the strength of Sl.No.84 of the exemption Notification No.6/06 dated 01.03.2006. It was also observed that the solar battery is being classified under CTH 85414011 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, whereas the other category of batteries were classified under CTH 85078000 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2.2 Therefore, a visit was mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for the benefit of exemption Notification No.6/06 dated 01.03.2006 as they were declaring their periodical returns regularly and have disclosed these facts in the returns. Therefore, extended period of limitation is not invokable as there was no suppression of facts on their part. It is further submitted that there was a demand raised against the appellant for payment at the rate of 10% of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... solar battery is cleared by availing benefit of exemption Notification No.6/06 dated 01.03.2006 and the same is declared in their periodical returns filed with the Department and there is no suppression on the part of the appellant. Moreover, in another proceedings against the appellant by the Revenue, initiated proposing that the appellant is not maintaining separate cenvat credit account for in....