9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of safety headgears, parts thereof, motor vehicle accessories, etc., M/s. Studds Ltd. was incorporated on 20-4-95. It took over the business, assets and liabilities of M/s. Gadgets India. M/s. Gadgets India had entered into a sale agreement on 3-2-84 with M/s. Studds Accessories Ltd. (hereinafter referred to SAL) under which SAL was appointed as the sole distributor for whole of India of the products manufactured by M/s. Gadgets India except in the case of supplies to OE manufacturers, Government and semi-Government Bodies. The agreement was initially for a period of five years. After the expiry of above period in 1989 sale was being effected on the basis of purchase orders. 2. A show cause notice dated 3-2-2000 was issued to the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n raised by the appellant on the ground of limitation. The reason given in the show cause notice for invoking the larger period of limitation is as follows :- Whereas M/s. Studds Ltd. have never declared to the department that their advertisement packing costs/expenses had been borne by M/s. Studds Accessories Ltd. The advertisement expenses borne by M/s. Studds Accessories Ltd. to advertise the products manufactured by M/s. Studds Ltd. appears to be clear case of extra consideration. M/s. Studds Ltd. knowingly did not declare the amount of expenses borne by M/s. Studds Accessories towards advertisement of the products manufactured by M/s. Studds Ltd. with the intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty. The fact that the advertisem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention holding that examination of some documents in some other context does not mean that all the facts therein were in the knowledge of the department. It was then observed that the party never disclosed to the department that the assessable value reported by them in their return did not include advertising and packing charges and these charges were borne by M/s. SAL. This fact had come to the notice of the department only when M/s. SAL was called upon to submit copies of their balance sheets. Therefore, according to the assessing authority suppression of vital information from the department would attract extended period under the proviso to Section 11-A. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the above finding of the adjudicating author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of suppression of fact in the present case cannot be sustained. Taking into consideration the terms of the agreement in detail, the adjudicating authority under its earlier order dated 9-6-95 has entered a finding that no clause in the agreement would indicate any flow back to M/s. Gadgets India. The fact that the above finding was entered while examining the issue of related person is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the fact that under the agreement SAL has to bear the sales promotion expenses, has been brought to the notice of the department. We have no hesitation to hold that such information was before the department when show cause notice dated 30-3-93 was adjudicated and it was also taken into consideration by the adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
