9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.G. Chacko, Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Appearance: Shri T.C. Nair, Advocate, for appellant Shri Navneet, Authorised Representative (SDR), for respondent Per: P.G. Chacko This appeal filed by the assessee is against a demand of duty of Rs.9,22,304/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, interest on duty under Section 11AB of the Act and penalties under Section 11AC of the Act and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The impugned demand is for the period from 13.7.1998 to 30.9.1998 and the same is in respect of shampoo which was manufactured and marketed in sachets (8 ml) during the said period. The records of this case indicate that, over a period of time from June 1998 to September 1998, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod from 10.7.1998 to 30.9.1998 was held to be unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The present proceedings originated from show-cause notice dated 25.7.2002, which was issued by the department to recover differential duty of Rs.9,22,304/- from the assessee for the quarter ending 30.9.1998 as also for imposition of penalty. This show-cause notice invoked the extended period of limitation on the alleged ground that the noticee had suppressed the facts regarding the percentage of equalized sales tax amount, turnover tax, freight, bank charges and price equalization discount amount in the guise of holding their product to be assessable under Section 4A of the Act. Obviously, the new demand of duty was on the ground t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out that the relevant facts were suppressed by the assessee with intent to evade payment of appropriate amount of duty and, therefore, the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act was rightly invoked in this case. According to the learned SDR, the demand of duty at least for the period from 1.7.1998 to 12.7.1998 should be sustained and proportionate penalty should also be sustained. At this stage, the learned counsel has pleaded time-bar against the demand of duty. He submits that nothing was suppressed by the appellant and that all the requisite information was divulged to the department in a letter dated 18.4.2000 and hence it cannot be said that anything was suppressed by the appellant with intent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty on the basis of MRP) and 19.9.1998 (the date on which he reversed the stand and required the party to pay duty under Section 4). Where the department did not expect the assessee to disclose information relevant to valuation of the goods under Section 4 of the Act, it cannot be said that any non-disclosure of such information amounted to suppression. We are, therefore, clear in our mind that the allegation of suppression levelled against the assessee in the relevant show-cause notice is baseless and, if that be so, the demand of duty is unsustainable in law. It goes without saying that the Revenue cannot expect any penalty to be imposed on the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. (Dictated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
