2024 (8) TMI 712

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ise Registration in the year 1992. They were manufacturing PSC poles and supplying to the Electricity Boards. Both these units were individually claiming SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 02/03/2003. Earlier to this, they were covered by similar Notification for the relevant period towards SSI exemption. On the allegation that both the units have two common directors and common staff monitoring the accounting, marketing and supervision activities, Show Cause Notice was issued on 24/07/2013 on the Appellant demanding the Excise Duty for the period April 2008 to March 2012 by invoking the extended period provisions. Subsequently, one more Show Cause Notice was issued on 24/12/2013 for the period April 2012 to January 2013 o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g Co.[2011 (274) E.L.T. 10 (Cal)]. In view of these submissions, he prays that the appeals may be allowed on merits. 3. He further submits that though the Appellant Company and other unit were co-existing right from 1992 and they were under the supervision of the same Central Excise Authority, no query was ever raised about their turnover being liable to be clubbed together to deny the SSI benefit, till the first Show Cause Notice was issued on 24/07/2013. Hence the entire confirmed demand in respect of the first SCN is time barred. He further submits that even the second Show Cause Notice is time barred since it was issued on 24/12/2013. He relies on the case law of CCE, Jaipur Vs. Electro Mechanical Engineering Corporation [2008 (229) E.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed] 7. We also find that the Revenue has not brought in any specific evidence towards mutuality of interest and flow back of funds between these units. On the other hand, the Appellant submits that the very products dealt by them are being sold to two different sets of buyers, we find that the issue has been dealt by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur Vs. Electro Mechanical Engg. Corporation, Cited supra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 7. Respondents carried the matter in appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, ('the Tribunal'). The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, held that the respondents (appellants before the Tribunal) had disclosed all the material facts, as regards th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inding of fact, does not call for any interference. 11. As noted earlier, on the question of invocation of extended period of limitation, the Tribunal has held that the demand of duty was for the period from 1-5-1995 to 31-3-2000 whereas show cause notice was served only on 1-6-2000. The Tribunal has held that since there was no wilful or deliberate suppression of any material facts, extended period of limitation could not be invoked. 12. We agree with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there was no deliberate or wilful suppression of any material facts by the respondents from the Department. Hence, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. But, since the show cause notice was served on 1-6-2000, the period from 1....