Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (8) TMI 386

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has not given any finding in regard to the copy of the Agreement produced by the Appellant - It is well-settled principle that the already approved Price Lists cannot be re-opened retrospectively. So far as invoking the extended period is concerned, the Department is required to show that the assessee had suppressed the material facts from the Department - Department could not show that the appellant had suppressed the material facts from the Department - demand-cum-show cause notices are hit by limitation of time and therefore, the impugned Order does not survive - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/A/208/2001 - A/652/KOL/2012 - Dated:- 27-8-2012 - S K Gaule And D M Misra, JJ. For the Appellants : Shri J P Khaitan, SR Adv. And Shr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he provisions of Section 4(1)(a)(i) of Central Excise Act, 1944, which existed at the material time. The contention is that they had filed the Contract along with the Price Lists, and the Price Lists were provisionally approved in case of the first show cause notice and in case of the second show cause notice, all the Price Lists were approved. The assessments were initially provisional. However, they were finally assessed on 15.4.1987. The contention of the Appellant is that the Department had sought to enhance the price by comparing with the wholesale price of the goods, where Appellant's brand name was affixed instead of the brand name of the Appellant, M/s. Goodyear. The contention is that in their case, the prices were contractual pric .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Price Lists were already approved in this case and the demand notice was issued beyond the normal period of six months which existed at the material time, therefore hit by limitation of time. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on this Tribunal's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai vs. Dharangadhara Chemicals Works reported in 2003 (159) ELT 652 (Tri.-Chennai) and on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. reported in 2007 (215) ELT 489 (SC). The contention is that in the subsequent show cause notice, the demand for the longer period cannot be raised. In support of his contention, he has also placed reliance on the Hob' .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ween the Appellant and M/s. Goodyear, was submitted. Surprisingly, he has not given any finding in regard to the copy of the Agreement produced by the Appellant. We also find that the learned Commissioner has specifically mentioned that the Appellant were filing that Price Lists under Part-I and Part-II performs from time to time. It is well-settled principle that the already approved Price Lists cannot be re-opened retrospectively. So far as invoking the extended period is concerned, the Department is required to show that the assessee had suppressed the material facts from the Department. This Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai vs. Dharangadhara Chemicals Works (supra), held as under:- "6. We have careful .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se that absorption of HCL fumes with water is an exothermic reaction and hence the HCL absorber is necessarily cooled by water. The manufacturing process has been filed with the department in November, 1979 itself which clearly disclosed the formation of HCL of 30 to 33% concentration and that the other materials are also produced. It shows about the correct manufacture and entries which have been checked by the Inspector of Central Excise. Therefore, it cannot be said that department was not fully aware of the manufacturing process and the assessee had suppressed any material facts with an intention to evade duty. There has been scrutiny of documents on several occasions and it is only at a later date, the department intended to change the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates