9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - The appellants were marketing their products through M/s. Blue Star (P) Ltd. They had filed a price list No. 1/90, dated 22-8-1990 which was duly approved on 19-11-1990. Along with price list, the appellants had given their reply to the questionnaire given by the department. To the following question at Serial Number 2, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged that on determination, the differential duty payable was Rs. 2,27,725.43. It was alleged that the differential duty was recoverable in terms of the proviso to Section 11A of the CESA, 1944 and that the appellants were liable to be penalised. The Collector in the impugned order, confirmed the demand, holding that the extended period was invokable and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000.00. Hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 360, the facts of which were not identical to the present case. He further claimed that it was nowhere shown by the Collector in the order as to why the price was held to be a transfer price and not price in the course of wholesale trade. He stated that the clause that unsold goods would be taken back, was in the Agreement dated 31-3-1992, which was subsequent to the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion of information or misstatement made by the appellants in replying to the question. The only allegation on which the extended period had been invoked, is found to be without basis. We, therefore, hold that the demand made for the extended period cannot sustain and has to be set aside. Since there was no misrepresentation, the orders of penalty could also not sustain. Since we have decided thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
