TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1437
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Bangalore. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of journals, newsletters & periodicals, cartons, packaging materials, labels under Chapter heading 4801 and 4808 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the basis of intelligence and subsequent investigation, it is alleged that the appellant had crossed the Gross Turnover limit of Rs. 400 lakhs for the Financial Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 and accordingly not eligible to the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 for the Financial years 2007-08 and 2008-09; consequently show-cause notice was issued denying benefit of the said notification ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... account in computing the aggregate value of clearance of all excisable goods of Rs. 400.00 lakhs for 2006-07 and 2007-08, it was ignored by the adjudicating authority as well as the learned Commissioner(Appeals). He has submitted that the appellant had cleared journals, newsletters and periodicals, cartons, packaging materials etc. of which the dutiable items are only cartons, labels and tags. The computation value for the year 2007-08 is Rs. 34,68,240/- and for 2008-09 is Rs. 37,45,602/- on demand of duty is incorrect and untenable in law. He has submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable for the reason that items like newsletters, journals, periodicals which formed more than 80% of the turnover of the appellant could not be equat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... advocate has submitted that the demand for the period April 2007 to March 2009 was being issued on 30.01.2012; hence barred by limitation as the appellant had not suppressed any facts nor mis-declared to the Department in availing SSI benefit under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. All the clearances are duly recorded in their books of accounts; hence invocation of extended period of limitation and also imposition of penalty on the appellant-company as well as on the Executive Director cannot be sustained. 4. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue has reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner(Appeals). He has submitted that "NIL" rate is also a rate of duty under Central Excise Tariff Act as held in the case of CCE, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entral Excise Tariff Act, 1985. An attempt was made to distinguish between the excisable goods exempted by virtue of notification issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and goods though mentioned in the Tariff but attracts "nil" rate of duty. Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 defines excisable goods, which reads as follows:- Section 2(d) - excisable goods means goods specified in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as being subject to a duty of excise. 10. On a plain reading of the said definition, it is clear that goods mentioned in the First Schedule and Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act which are subject to a duty of excise be considered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he learned Commissioner(Appeals) to establish that during the relevant period, they have export sales, scrap sales which cannot form part of the 'value' but not considered, we find that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the contention of the appellant on the ground that necessary evidence has not been produced before him in support of the claim that the gross turnover value would be less than Rs. 400 lakhs if exports and other expenditure to be considered. We find that the appellant had enclosed documents at pages 4 to 15 of the paper book, in support of their claim which seems to have not been placed before the authorities below or not considered; hence, this issue needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for conside....