9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of penalty of Rs. 21 lakhs under Rule 173Q and confiscation of land, building, machinery etc., in A. No. E/1457/2002-A the Revenue seeks enhancement of the quantum of the penalty. 2. The appellant company was engaged in manufacturing ice-cream in its factory situated at Sahibabad since 1981. It was clearing the ice-cream on payment of Central Excise duty. On 14-10-94 the appellant along with certain other companies (which are collectively referred to as K-North ) entered into an agreement with Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as BBLIL) and Unlever Industry Pvt. Ltd. known as the sourcing agreement. Under the said agreement BBLIL was to place orders on K-North, including the appellant for manufacturing ice-cream ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Interest on deposits as security, advances received by the appellant, value of the brand name Kwality Wall etc. The appellant filed detailed reply to the show cause notice raising objections both on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. According to the appellant, the transaction between appellant and BBLIL/HLL was on a principal to principal basis with price as the sole consideration for the sale of the products. Other contentions were also raised on the merits. Apart from the above, the assessee contended that the sourcing agreement dated 14-10-94 on the basis of which the entire transaction is carried on was made available to the Excise Department in March - April, 1995. Therefore, there was no suppression or misdeclaration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not on the ground that the parties are related persons, the price declared by the assessee was rejected. The view taken by the Commissioner was that there was direct and indirect consideration flowing to the assessee from BBLIL/HLL. We do not find much merit in this contention of the Revenue. When we go through different items of direct and indirect considerations alleged to have been received by the assessee, it is seen that each item was subject matter of the agreement dated 14-10-2000 which had been considered in detail in our order in Kwality Ice Cream Co. Be that it may, in the present case we find that the appeal can be disposed on the issue of limitation. 6. The learned DR reiterated the view taken by the Commissioner that it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
