9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... namely flavoured ready syrup (FRS). The appellants (3) to (5) are officers of the first appellant company. 2. The dispute arising in these appeals relates to valuation of flavoured ready syrup (FRS) of Thumps Up and Coca Cola brands of aerated waters manufactured by the first appellant. Order impugned was passed pursuant to a show cause notice 26-3-98 invoking the extended period of limitation under proviso 11A(1). The period covered by the show cause notice is from 31-12-94 to March 1997. Under the impugned order the Commissioner confirmed duty demand of Rs. 30,49,200/-, imposed penalty of Rs. 10,28,469/- on the first appellant under Section 11AC and a further amount Rs. 1,50,000/- under Rule 173Q(1). The first appellant is made liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods were sold to their holding company/related buyer namely, GAPL and did not intimate that fact to the department while filing price declarations/invoices. They have acted with the intention to suppress the fact to evade payment of excise duty. 5. It is contended by the first appellant before the Commissioner that the facts that GAPL, the bulk buyer was the holding company of CBL was routinely published in every year s balance sheet as a mandatory schedule and was within the knowledge of all concerned, including the department. Reliance was also placed on show cause notice dated 6-1-97 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut and also the order-in-original No. 34/97 dated 18-6-97 passed by the Commissioner of Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to submission of the balance-sheet. The Commissioner observes that no evidence is produced by the assessee to show that the balance-sheets were made available to the department as claimed. In the light of the above facts, we are of the view that invoking larger period of limitation in this case was totally unjustified. When the department is aware of the fact that second Appellant is the holding company of the first appellant and major portion of the sale is to the second appellant and show cause notice had been issued on that basis as early as 6-7-97, department cannot be heard to contend that the first appellant has suppressed the fact of second appellant being its holding company. Since we are inclined to allow the appeals on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
