TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1092
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2.1 Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter 30 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and was availing the benefit of Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 and were also clearing the goods at NIL rate of duty. The appellant was also manufacturing some branded goods on behalf of certain other entities. 2.2 During the course of audit of the appellant's records, it was alleged that the appellant was ineligible for SSI exemption under the notification as the value of their clearances during 2006-07 was to the tune of Rs.6,86,45,813/- being....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of limitation in defiance of the settled position of law. He also submits that it is a settled position of law that in a case in which a show cause notice has been issued for the earlier period on certain set of facts, then, on the same set of facts, another show cause notice based on the same/similar set of facts invoking the extended period of limitation on the plea of suppression of facts cannot be issued as the facts were already in the knowledge of the department. In this regard, he relies on the following decisions: Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise - 2006 (4) TMI 127 - Supreme Court. P & B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise - 2003 (2) TMI 68 - Supreme Court Larsen & T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on as held in the case of Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut - 2005 (188) ELT. 149 (S.C.). He also submits that as the dispute pertains to interpretation of a condition to the notification, it cannot be alleged that there is suppression of facts or contravention of law with intention to evade payment of tax. For this submission, he relies on the following decisions: Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. CCE, Madras - 1994 (74) ELT 9 (SC) Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC) Gangadhar Bulk Movers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur - 2012 (27) STR 258 (Tri. Mum.) M/s Mitra S.K. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Service Tax, Kolkata - 2023 (10) TMI 227 - CESTAT Kolkata ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....department added the value of even non-excisable goods and exempted excisable goods which are to be excluded as per the Notification No. 8/2003-CE. In this regard, we observe that the assessee/appellant is correct that for deciding on the eligibility of exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE the turnover is to be computed after excluding the value of non-excisable and exempted excisable goods. Revenue has to follow this principle that value of non-excisable and non exempted goods are not to be added when the turnover is computed to decide on the entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 8/2003-CE. 8.1.1 The assessee has been manufacturing various kind of items and some of these items may not have the facility of abatement under Cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idering the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that the department issued first show cause notice (SCN-1) on 09.04.2009 for the period January 2008 to March 2008 without invoking the extended period of limitation but subsequently on 19.08.2009, the department issued another show cause notice (SCN-2) for the period April 2007 to December 2007 by invoking the extended period of limitation, and both the show cause notices arose out of the same audit report. We find that it is a settled position of law that in a subsequent show cause notice arising out of the same audit report, the allegation of suppression cannot be alleged and extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in view of the vario....