TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 987
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngly, they were filing monthly Returns in form ER-1 & also discharging C. Ex. duty liability regularly. By the Notification No. 12/2012 CE dated 17.03.2012, concessional rates of duty for different goods were prescribed. 1.1 Vide Notification No. 04/2014 dated 17.2.2014, Sr. No. 346 was inserted in the above referred Notification No. 12/2012-CE and the concessional rate of duty @10% was prescribed for the goods falling under Chapter 85 (other than falling under CETH 854810) w.e.f. 17.02.2014. The effect of the said Sr. No. 346 was applicable up to 31st December 2014 (in terms of the Notification No. 6/2014-CE dated 25-6-2014). 1.2 In view of the above Sr. No. 346, the appellant was paying C. Ex. duty @10% while removal of the goods viz; P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d from 11.07.2014 onwards. It was also observed that the goods falling under CETH 85441190 were removed for home clearance & for exports under claim of rebate @10.30% instead of @12.36% during the period from July 2014 to December 2014. In view of the above, it was concluded by the audit party that the assessee had cleared goods falling under CETH 85441190 valued Rs. 47,37,48,994/- @10.30% instead of 12.36% during the period July to December 2014 which resulted in short payment of C. Ex. duty Rs. 97,59,229/-. The said audit objection was communicated vide letter dated 15.05.2017. In response to the same, the appellant had submitted the reply dated 22-05-2017. 1.5 In terms of the said observation, the SCN dated 18.10.2017 was issued proposi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and classification of the goods were also mentioned. Therefore, the fact was known to the department. Therefore there was no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Hence, the entire demand for the period July, 2014 to December, 2014 by show cause notice dated 18.10.2017 invoking extended period is clearly time barred. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- * V.E. Commercial Vehicles Ltd., Man Trucks India Pvt. Ltd, V/s CCE-2018 (3) TMI 256-CESTAT-New Delhi * CCE V/s V.E. Commercial Vehicles Ltd -2019 (9) TMI 887-SC * Sanghi Industries Ltd. V/s CCE-2014 (302) ELT 459 (Tri.-Ahmd) * Accurate Chemicals Industries V/s CCE- 2014 (300) ELT 451(Tri-Del) * CCE V/s Accurate Chemical Industries- 2014 (310) ELT 441 (All) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cluded by Notification dated 11.07.2014. Since, the notification otherwise prescribed the time limit upto31.12.2014,the appellant had bonafide belief that 10% rate is effective till 31.12.2014. It is only because of the appellant was not aware of the notification, they continued to pay the duty at the rate of 10%. Appellant's bonafide further get reinforced on the ground that the appellant have been declaring the goods with Chapter heading and the rate of duty, at the rate of 10% in their all ER-1 monthly return for the period July, 14 to December,14. The changes were brought by statutory amendment which is otherwise known to the department also. The department was also aware that the appellant prior to 11.07.2014 had been paying the duty a....