9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 11-1-2011 - Mrs.Archana Wadhawa, Mr.M.Veeraiyan JJ. Present for the Appellant: Shri B.L.Narsimhan, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri K.P.Singh, SDR PER: M.VEERAIYAN This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) no.11/HKM/CC/BRI/NCH/2004 dt.23.8.04 by which a demand of Rs.33,74,866/- stands confirmed against M/s.Sinar MAS Pulp and Paper (I) Ltd. (since amalgamated with Balarpur Industries Ltd.), hereinafter referred to as the appellants. 2. Heard both sides. Synopsis of arguments stands submitted on behalf of the department on 29.06.10 which was reiterated by the learned SDR. 3.1. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the DRI, in November,2002 commenced investigation about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Oil Industries filed appeal against demand of Rs.17,24,983/- confirmed by the very same impugned order and the Tribunal vide order dated 20.1.2006 in appeal No. C/820/04 reported in 2006 (196) ELT 21 allowed the appeal. 4.2. He also submits EZY pharma (P) Ltd. field appeal No.C/869/04 chaellenging the demand of Rs.17,65,298/- which has also been allowed vide final order No.130/06-Cus dated 28.4.06 following the decision in the case of Kamani Oil Industries arising out of the same impugned order cited supra. The Tribunal in its order dt.28.4.06 also held that the duty demand could not have been made for the extended period under proviso to Section 28 as the appellant, as transferee of licence was not guilty of any offence as mentioned in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above decision, it has been categorically held that the demand against such transferee cannot be made invoking the extended period of limitation as there was no evidence of fraud or collusion against the transferee. 7.2. The relevant portion of the order in the case of ZYG pharma Pvt.Ltd. is reproduced below: 3. The contention of the appellant is that the demand in extended period was not attracted in the present case at all since the appellant was not guilty of any fraud or suppression or mis-statement of facts. The appellant had only purchased validly issued tradable licence and used the same for payment of duty. Learned Counsel has pointed out that the finding in the impugned order is that the exporter who obtained the DEPB l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
