ELECTRONICS RESEARCH & Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal at the instance of the assessee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner dated 31.1.2000, Apart from faking certain grounds on merits, the appellant has also contended that the demand is barred by limitation.

(2.) SINCE we are inclined to accept the contention raised by the appellant on the ground of limitation, we do not propose to go into the other contentions raised by the appellant on merits. The period involved is 1993 -94 to 1996 -97. Show cause notice was issued on 18.6.1998. The appellant was established in 1974 as a Govt. of Kerala undertaking. The main objective of the Centre was to promote and establish modern scientific research and development in electronics in the State of Kerala and design and develop electronics components. Over a period of years the appellant has dealt with strategic areas like automation and control technology, power electronics, mass communication systems and computers in addition to various defence projects. In January 1994 the appellant entered into an MOU with M/s. Jyothi Ltd., Baroda for development of a Microprocessor based Automatic Voltage Regulator (AVR) for Brushless Alternators. After completion of the development work it was dispatched to M/s. Jyothi Ltd., Baroda for field trials. Since the local excise authorities insisted on a certificate from the excise authorities at Trivendrum that the appellants are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 167,71 -CE dated 11.9.71, the appellant wrote a letter dated 6.1.1994 to the Assistant Commissioner requesting for issue of a certificate. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee made available a copy of the letter which would show that the appellant has referred in detail to terms of MOD and the process of development of Microprocessor based AVR system. After being satisfied with the nature of the activity of the appellant the Assistant Collector issued a certificate on 10.1.1994, which reads as follows:

(3.) IT is the contention of the appellant that since the nature of the MOU entered into with other parties are on the same line as the one dated 6.1.1994, it cannot be contended that Revenue was not aware of the activity of the appellant. Pursuant to a letter dated 1.11.95 the appellant has again supplied all the required details in the questionnaire enclose with the above letter. Under these circumstances, it is contended that recourse to larger period of limitation cannot be justified, as there was no suppression of fact on the part of the assessee with intent to evade duty. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Centre for Development of Advanced Computing v. CCE, Pune 2002 (80) ECC 253 (SC): 2002 (141) ELT6 (SC) in support of the above contention.