9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luded that there was misstatement or suppression of facts. Penalty cannot be imposed. - E/1375/04 - - - Dated:- 25-8-2011 - Mr Ashok Jindal, Mr.Sahab Singh, JJ. Appearance Mrs. Padmavati Patil, advocate for Appellant Shri Novneet, SDR for Respondet Per : Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order confirming the demand of differential duty of Rs.4,80 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riving at the assessable value of the goods used for captive consumption. Therefore, show-cause notice was issued for undervaluation of their clearances, demanding differential duty alongwith interest and imposition of penalty. The show-cause notice was adjudicated and impugned demand alongwith interest and penalty was confirmed. On appeal before the first appellate authority, the adjudication ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gation of suppression does not sustain. She also contended that as the show-cause notice has been issued in this case on 29.6.98 for the period October, 1993 to March, 1994, the demands are barred by limitation as the price declaration by the appellants was well within the knowledge of the department and the said price list has been approved by the competent authority. To support this contention, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Aurangabad vs Raymonds Ltd. reported in 2006 (204) ELT 3 (S.C.). 5.After hearing both sides, we find that in this case, the show-cause notice has been issued on 29.6.98 for the period October,93 to March, 94 on the allegation of undervaluation of their clearances to their sister unit for captive consumption. In fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
