TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 818
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 on Solar Inverters falling under CSH 85044010, Combiner Box / Array Guard falling under CSH 85049090 and PV Logs falling under CSH 85371000 declaring the same as Solar Power Generating System and cleared the same without payment of duty (against Sl.No.332 List 8, No.10 of Notification No.12/2012-CE). Alleging that the items manufactured and cleared by the appellants are parts of the Solar Power Generating System, show-cause notice was issued proposing denial of benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 to them and demanding duty of Rs.10,00,32,771/- for the period December 2011 to June 2014 along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and equal penalty and the duty amount deposited by the appellant had been appropriated against the demand. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant had voluntarily deposited the amount of duty under protest in August 2014. He has further submitted that the show-cause notice is barred by limitation as there is no wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty and they have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver matched with goods they have manufactured and cleared availing the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. Non-declaration of the correct description in the ER-1 returns itself indicates suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty; therefore the learned Commissioner has rightly invoked the extended period of limitation in confirming the demand. In support of the submission, he referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad Vs. Urmin Products P. Ltd. & others [2023-TIOL-148-SC-CX]. Also the appellant could not establish through evidences that they have availed benefit of exemption under bona fide belief; hence the plea of the appellant of bona fide belief is not acceptable. In support, he referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Responsive Industries Ltd. (UNIT-II) Vs. CGGST&CE, Palghar [2019-TIOL-1229-HC-MUM-CX]. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The appellant in their written submissions as well as during the course of hearing feebly contested on the issue of denial of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 to their products viz. Solar Inverters, Combiner Box....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nding that the articles used for installing 'solar power generating system' are exempted from Value Added Tax. The State Government had framed a policy providing incentives to a developer, including exemption from Value Added Tax and at serial number 10 'solar power generating system' was mentioned. The contention of the appellant was that the existence of a sub-station was an essential practical requirement of 'solar power plant' and, therefore, this was also covered under the exemption. It is in this context that the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as follows : "18. Even by taking into account the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the opinion that power generating system includes all components even the grid/goods related to sub-station, without which, the system cannot work. 19. The policy framed by the State Government otherwise will have no meaning. The policy was framed keeping in view global warming and resultant climatic changes and all kinds of incentives have been provided for setting up of solar power based projects in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is really unfortunate that instead of promoting such projects, all kind of hurdles are being creat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant between 'devices' and 'systems' is not of relevance to the present case because both non-conventional energy devices or systems specified in List 8 are covered by the description of excisable goods. 23. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the impugned order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. Thus, the parts manufactured by the appellant are not eligible to the benefit of exemption under Notifiation No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. Also, we find that the Tribunal in the aforesaid case has upheld the order of the adjudicating authority wherein the demand of Rs.6,85,64,844/- has been confirmed invoking extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the present case, we find that the appellant has challenged the confirmation of demand invoking extended period of limitation advancing the argument that all the facts have been disclosed to the Department through their ER-1 Returns and hence suppression of facts cannot be invoked against them. We find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of parts of Solar Power Generating System viz. Solar Inverters, Combiner ....