9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 867X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CHT India, during the relevant period, was a joint venture company formed by CHT Germany and Merchant group. The appellant entered into an agreement with them on 28-5-96 for the supply of bulk drugs at the decided value between two of them. The appellants were served with show cause notice on 10-1-05, proposing confirmation of duty on the ground that post amendment to Section 4 of Central Excise Act with effect from 1-7-00, the appellant and the buyer company have to be treated as related person and the price at which CHT is selling the goods had to be adopted as assessable value. Demand was raised for the period till 5-7-2001, as from that date onwards, M/s. CHT India became 100% subsidiary of the German company. 2. Commissioner in his i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant in the year 1996. For better appreciation, we reproduce the letter dt. 22-11-96, written by Superintendent to the assessee. Office of Superintendent of Central Excise, A.R.I,DTV-I, Ahmedabad F.No.A.R.I/Misc/CHT/96-97/1664 Date : 22-11-96 To M/s. Halcyon Labs Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 409, GIDC, Naroda, Ahmedabad Sub : Sale price of your product MEROPAN. BRE:. During the course of verification of invoices of your registered dealer M/s. CHT (India) Pvt. Ltd., Naroda, it has been noticed that you have sold your product namely MEROPAN BRE vide invoice No. 152, dt. 25-8-96 at the rate of Rs. 35.50 per kg while M/s. CHT (India) Pvt. Ltd. sold the said product at the rate of Rs. 100/- per kg. You ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uly answered by the appellant. Thereafter, no further proceedings were initiated. It can be safely concluded that the entire facts were in the knowledge of the department in the year 1996 itself. As such, the demand of duty raised in January 2005 is clearly beyond the limitation period. Arguments of the learned SDR that new Section 4 came into force in 2000 itself and as such the enquiry raised in 1996 will not cut short the period of limitation cannot be appreciated and we are not convinced with the above argument of learned SDR. The reference to the enquiry raised in 1996 is only to show that the entire facts were in the knowledge of Revenue and nothing was suppressed or mis-stated by them. The amendment of 2000 was also in the knowledge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
