9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration over and above as to what has been agreed under the agreement - price fixation was in accordance with the formula agreed to between the parties which has been specifically incorporated in the source agreement – Appeal dismissed - 5216-5217 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 26-11-2010 - B. Sudershan Reddy and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri K. Swami, B.K. Prasad, Ms. B. Sunita, Ms. Priya Bhatnagar, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocates, for the Appellant. S/Shri Ravinder Narain, Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar, Ajay Aggarwal, Ms. Mallika Joshi and Ranjan Narain, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : B. Sudershan Reddy, J.]. M/s. Monsanto Manufactures Pvt. Ltd. was the manufacturer of ice-cream falling under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ( for short the Rules and Act ) together with penalty and interest. The allegation in the show cause notice was that M/s. Monsanto received additional consideration over and above the assessable value declared by it and additional consideration flowing to it from BBLIL and/or HLL in several forms like non-competition reserve, interest free deposit, consideration for sale of marketing undertaking, interest on deposits as security advances received by it, value of the brand name etcetera. M/s. Monsanto raised its objections to the allegations and averments made in the show cause notice both on the merits and as well as on the ground of limitation inter alia contending that the transaction betwee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound that parties were related persons and its case was that there was direct and indirect consideration flowing to the assessee from BBLIL/HLL. 5. The Tribunal after elaborate consideration of the matter, relying on its own decision referred to (supra), held that there was no direct and indirect considerations received by M/s. Monsanto as alleged by the Department. Each of the items was the subject matter of debate in the decision referred to (supra) and the same was applicable to the facts on hand. The Tribunal, accordingly, proceeded to consider whether the Department was justified, in the given facts and circumstances, in invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Act. The Tribunal found that the show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al itself. We have by a separate order upheld the view taken by the Tribunal, therefore, this issue need not detain us any further. 9. We do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Department was justified in invoking the extended period under Section 11A of the Act. The entire transaction between the parties was on the basis of the agreement which was within the knowledge of the Department from March-April, 1995. It is not the allegation in the show cause notice that the assessee has received any direct and indirect consideration over and above as to what has been agreed under the agreement. We have noticed in the connected matter (M/s. Kwality Ice Cream) that the price fixation was in accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
