9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. M/s. Chennai Bottling Co. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the assessee, are aggrieved by the demand of duty of Rs. 98,851/- and penalty of Rs. 70,000/-, while Shri C.A. Ramarathinam, Deputy General Manager (Finance) of the company, is aggrieved by personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The impugned demand of duty is on the goods cleared by the assessee to M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods cleared to M/s. SSDL during the period of dispute, proposing penalties on the assessee and their Deputy General Manager etc. This notice invoked the larger period of limitation on the alleged ground of suppression of facts by the assesseee. The allegations in the SCN were denied and the proposal for recovery of duty etc. was contested. It was in adjudication of this dispute that the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ld. counsel, if the finding of relationship cannot be sustained on facts, the Commissioner s order is bound to be set aside. In this context, the ld. Counsel has referred to Order-in-Appeal No. 43/99 (M-II) (D) dt. 31-12-99 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. In the said Order-in-Appeal, the appellate authority had found (a) that M/s. Chennai Bottling Co. Ltd. were not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this order was not challenged by the department. In the circumstances, the finding recorded to the contra by the Commissioner in the impugned order cannot be sustained and, consequently, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly. Both the appeals are allowed. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 18-9-2008) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
