2018 (11) TMI 667 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – SSI Exemption – inclusion of value of clearances of the exempted goods in their total turnover – Time Limitation – Held that:- The provisions of N/N. 8/2003 dated 01/03/2003 under para-3A are very clear that the except the clearances as mentioned under para-3A all other clearances need to be included in the aggregate value of turnover for deciding the SSI eligibility under N/N. 8/2003 – Since the clearances of SHASHTROKTA medicines have not been included in the total turnover by the appellant for the relevant financial years and therefore they have failed to pay central excise duty as per law.
–
Time Limitation – Held that:- The appellant did not have any intention of evading central excise duty, at the same time it is found that the charges of suppression, mis-declaration or fraudulent intention with the purpose of evading central excise duty, as is required for invoking the extended time proviso under Section 11A of Central Excise Act
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
008-2009 and 2009-2010 have exceeded the value of clearances beyond rupees four crores. It has also been mentioned that during financial year s 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the turnover of the appellant were ₹ 4,73,10,393/- and ₹ 4,41,67,056/- respectively. It has been the contention of the Department that in term of para-3A of Notification No. 8/2003 dated 01/03/2003, the appellant should have included the value of clearances of the exempted goods in their total turnover and should have paid duty for financial year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 09/05/2014 has been issued to the appellant which was adjudicated by the learned Additional Commissioner who has confirmed central excise duty amounting to ₹ 12,36,000/- against the appellant, penalty under Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act has also been imposed. The appellant have preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his impugned order dated 27/11/2017 has confirmed the fi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
y by contravening any of the provisions of the act. The learned Advocate has taken us through two declarations made by the appellant to the concerned Assistant Commissioner of central excise vide their letter dated 01/04/2009 and 31/03/2010 to the effect that they have shown the total value of clearances in their declarations to the Department which proves that they have not suppressed any facts from the Department with any intention of evading central excise duty. It has also been argued that extended time proviso under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 is not invokable in their case as they had no intention of evading central excise duty. The learned Advocate has relied on following decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court in this regard. (i) Pushpam pharmaceutical company versus Commissioner of Central Excise – 2002 – TIOL – 235 – S.C. – CX. (ii) Rainbow Industries versus CCE – 1994 (74) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) (iii) Chemphar Drug Ltd. vs. CCE – 2002 – TIOL – 266 – S.C. [1989 (40) E.L.T. 27
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
pellant have failed to include the value of clearances of SHASHTROKTA medicines in their value of clearances while calculating the turnover for the purpose of deciding whether they need to pay the duty after clearances of more than threshold limit. The learned Advocate has also admitted this fact that they were under genuine belief that the value of clearances of exempted goods were not includable in the total turnover. In this regard we hold that the provisions of Notification No. 8/2003 dated 01/03/2003 under para-3A are very clear that the except the clearances as mentioned under para-3A all other clearances need to be included in the aggregate value of turnover for deciding the SSI eligibility under Notification No. 8/2003. Since the clearances of SHASHTROKTA medicines have not been included in the total turnover by the appellant for the relevant financial years and therefore they have failed to pay central excise duty as per law. 7. Thus we hold that the demand of duty on the appe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =