M/S.Globe Sales Corporation vs Cce, Jalandhar

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI

Date of Hearing/ Decision:16.09.2015

Excise Appeal No.E/1898/2006-EX(DB)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.275/CE/JAL/2005 dated 22.11.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jalandhar).

M/s.Globe Sales Corporation Appellants

Vs.

CCE, Jalandhar Respondent

Appearance:

Rep. by Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate for the appellant.

Rep. by Shri S. Nanthuk, Joint CDR for the respondent.

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Coram: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Final Order No.52916/2015 dated:16.09.2015

Per Ashok Jindal:

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the benefit of SSI exemption under notification no.1/93-CE dated 28.02.93 was denied to the appellant.

2. The facts of the case are that during the period 1.4.94 to 6.6.95, the appellant manufactured Gate Valves, which were embossed with the trade mark SKS and VS, which were brand names of M/s.SKS Industries, Jalandhar and the appellant was availing the benefit of the exemption no.1/93-CE dated 28.2.93. As the appellant was manufacturing branded goods in the brand name of others, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of exemption notification no.1/93-CE. In these set of facts, a show cause notice dated 16.03.99 was issued to the appellant for the period mentioned hereinabove to deny the benefit of the notification and consequently to demand duty along with interest and for imposition of penalty. The notice was adjudicated by the lower authorities on merits as well as on limitation but both the lower authorities confirmed the proposal made in the show cause notice. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us.

3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that for the same offence and for the same period, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 24.11.95 for seizure of the goods and consequently for demanding duty thereon. Therefore, the notice impugned is barred by limitation as the facts were in the knowledge of the Department and the show cause notice has been issued for extended period of limitation. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, ld. Authorised Representative defended the impugned order.

5. Heard the parties.

6. On perusal of the record, we find that on the same issue for seizure of the goods consequently demanding duty thereon, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 24.11.95 and the same was adjudicated in the year 1996. Consequently, this notice has been issued on 16.03.99, which is highly barred by limitation as all the facts were in the knowledge of the Department while issuing first show cause notice on 24.11.95. Therefore, we hold that the extended period of limitation is not invokable. In the facts of this case, consequently show cause notice is barred by limitation. In these sets of facts, the demands cannot be confirmed against the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.

[Order dictated & pronounced in the open court]

( Ashok Jindal )

Member (Judicial)

( B. Ravichandran)

Member (Technical)

Ckp.

1