9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made during the orders 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. A penalty of Rs. 3,83,250/- is imposed on M/s. Indian Aluminium Company. Further an amount of Rs. 4,450/- as well as of Rs. 84,499/- have been confirmed and appropriated by the said order on M/s. Shree Meenatchi Aluminium Extrusions Ltd. Furthermore, a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- is imposed on M/s. Shree Meenatchi and another Rs. 50,000/- on M/s. Agents Aluminium Co. Ltd. 2. Heard Learned Consultant Shri R. Swaminathan appearing for M/s. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. and Learned Advocate Shri Narayanan appearing for M/s. Agents Aluminium Co. Ltd. None appeared for M/s. Shree Meenatchi Aluminium Extrusions Ltd. Ms. Aruna Gupta, Learned JDR is for Revenue in the case of Agents Aluminium Co. Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in this case in view of these submissions. Therefore the order impugned is not a truly speaking order. Learned Consultant also contested the issue on merits and submitted that the issue is already covered by a number of judgments inasmuch as that the relationship between M/s. Indian Aluminium Company and M/s. Shree Meenatchi Aluminium Extrusions was a principal-to-principal basis and they manufactured these as a job worker on their own out of raw materials supplied by Indian Aluminium Co. Apart from that, they have also manufactured extrusions on their own account and supplied to other buyers. Therefore it cannot be said that the manufacturing operations of Shree Meenatchi Aluminium was only with respect to Indian Aluminium Co. Learned Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to which we cannot subscribe, there is no other finding as to why the larger period has been invoked in this case. Therefore we find that the Order impugned is not a speaking order with respect to the invokation of the larger period and the same needs to be set aside and the matter remanded for de novo consideration by the learned Commissioner after hearing the parties concerned and also after giving a detailed reason as to why extended period is justified. In view of the fact that the matter is being remanded on the issue of limitation itself, no directions or conclusions are expressed in this order on the question of merits which is left open and may be re-heared during the de novo proceedings on the basis of submissions made by the vario ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
