9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1995 (7) TMI 214 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
The issues involved in this case are the wrongful availing of benefits under Notifications 85-C.E. and 175/86-C.E., mutuality of interest among different units, extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, suppression of facts, and the applicability of penalty. Benefit Availed Under Notifications: The Collector found that both appellants wrongly availed benefits under Notifications 85-C.E. and 175/86-C.E. due to their mutual interest and financial involvement. Duty was demanded from M/s. Gufic Pharma (P) Ltd, penalties were imposed, and confiscation of assets was ordered, redeemable upon payment of fines. Mutuality of Interest and Extended Period: The Collector's Order determined M/s. Gufic Pharma (P) Ltd. as the real unit, suggesting M/s. Gufic Pvt. Ltd. was created to unlawfully benefit from the Notification. The demand covered the period from 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1989, invoking the extended period under Section 11A due to alleged fraud, misstatement, and suppression of facts. Suppression of Facts and Extended Period Applicability: The Collector concluded that the extended period was correctly invoked as the appellants did not disclose mutual interest among the five units, including common shareholding and financial ties within the Chokshi family. However, the Tribunal noted a distinction between alleged ownership and mutual interest, questioning the basis for invoking the extended period. Legal Precedents and Extended Period: Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal highlighted that failure to disclose financing details does not warrant the extended period if not legally required. Citing a case precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the demand for duty could not be sustained, setting it aside along with the imposed penalty, ultimately allowing both appeals. This judgment emphasizes the importance of legal requirements for invoking the extended period and the need for clear evidence to support allegations of suppression of facts in excise duty cases.
|
