M\/s Jamna Pharmaceuticals Versus CGST, CCE, Bhopal
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 667 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 14-9-2018
Excise Appeal No. 50576 of 2018 – A\/53109\/2018-EX[DB]
Central Excise
Shri C.L. Mahar, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Bipin Garg, Advocate – for the appellant.
\nShri H.C. Saini, Authorized Representative (DR) – for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nPer. C.L. Mahar :-
\nThe brief of the matter are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of patent and proprietary medicines and SHASTROKTA medicines falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 30039011 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The appellant have been availing SSI exemption from payment of central excise duty up to the turnover of Rs. 1.50 crore's as per Notification No. 8\/2003 dated 01\/03\/2003. During the course of audit of the appellant on 26\/04\/2014 it was detected by the departmental audit party that the appellant during the f<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n findings of order-in-original. The appellant is before us against the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals). = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n T. 276 (S.C.)] = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n on the appellant is legally sustainable however we are also the view that since the appellant have truly declared their value of clearances to the Department vide their letter dated 01\/04\/2009 as well as 31\/03\/2010 wherein the value of both the patent and proprietary medicines as well as that of SHASHTROKTA medicines have specifically been mentioned by the appellant. We are therefore of the view that the appellant did not have any intention of evading central excise duty, at the same time we find 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 are not available in the in the facts of the matter. We therefore hold that demand is barred by period of limitation and therefore same is legally not sustainable = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Jamna Pharmaceuticals Versus CGST, CCE, BhopalCentral Excise2018 (11) TMI 667 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 14-9-2018Excise Appeal No. 50576 of 2018 – A\/53109\/2018-EX[DB]Central ExciseShri C.L. Mahar, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate – for the appellant. Shri H.C. Saini, Authorized Representative (DR) – … Continue reading “M\/s Jamna Pharmaceuticals Versus CGST, CCE, Bhopal”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15001","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15001","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15001"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15001\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15001"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15001"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15001"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants have contended that they were under genuine belief that while calculating the total turnover for availing SSI exemption the value of exempted goods may not be includable in the total turnover. It has been argued that the value of clearances of Ayurvedic patent and proprietary medicines were less then Rs. 400 lakhs in the preceding financial years 2008-2009 and 2009- 2010 and therefore they were under impression that no central excise duty is payable by them. It has further been submitted that the appellant were totally unaware of the fact that the clearance of value of Ayurvedic SHASTROKT medicines are also to be included for determining the total value of clearances of all excisable goods cleared for home consumption. It has also been contended that that there was no intention of the appellant to evade excise dut<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. It has been contested by the appellant that they have furnished the true and correct value of clearances and same has been acknowledged by the department and therefore it cannot be alleged that they have suppressed any information with a purpose of evading central excise duty.
\n4. We have also heard the learned Departmental Representative who has reiterated the findings given in the order of Commissioner (Appeals).
\n5. We have heard both the sides and have also perused the record of appeal.
\n6. It is a matter of fact that while calculating aggregate value of clearances the appellant have not included the value of goods which were excisable but otherwise exempted vide Notification No. 3\/2005 dated 24\/02\/2005 it is also a matter of record that that as per the conditions of Notification No. 8\/2003 dated 01\/03\/2003 the value of exempted goods should have also been included while calculating the aggregate value of turnover in a particular financial year. It is apparent t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n8. Accordingly we hold that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order is without any merit and therefore we set aside the sam<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n