9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. During the material period, the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Steel Bars and Rods (Chapter 72 of the CETA Schedule). They also manufactured these goods on job work basis. During April to July 1997, they manufactured CTD Bars on job work basis out of input supplied by their sister concern (M/s. G.K. Steels and Allied Industries, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on merits as well as on limitation. The original authority and the first appellate authority rejected the assessee s plea and confirmed the demand of differential duty amounting to Rs. 4,48,515/-. They also imposed a penalty of equal amount on the assessee. 2. Ld. Counsel, having perused the Supreme Court s judgment in CCE, Indore v. S. Kumars Ltd. [2005 (190) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.)] cited by ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the assessee so as to warrant invocation of larger period of limitation. These submissions are opposed by the Jt. CDR, who submits that neither the relationship nor the fact that the depot prices of the sister concern were higher than the prices adopted by the assessee was disclosed to the department. It was only during the investigative stage and, that too, when requisitioned by the depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Empire Industries Ltd. v. UOI [1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (S.C.)] and Ujagar Prints-II incorporating arms length principle would be applicable. The decision in Empire Industries (supra) and Ujagar Prints-II [1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.)] were known to the assessee during the entire period of dispute. We, therefore, reject the Counsel s, plea of bona fide belief. There is no material on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
