9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turing company and marketing company were related persons and that sale price to the related marketing company could not have constituted correct assessable value. On the ground of limitation to be sufficient and held that the demand beyond the normal period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is barred by limitation - The penalty on the appellant as well as its directors and officials was not found sustainable - The department is dealing with the same group of companies and thus the finding that it was aware of the marketing pattern is a finding of fact, which does not call for interference – there was no illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal, that in the circumstances the demand beyond the normal period under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Sheffield Appliances v. CCE, Kolkata reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 625, rendered in the case of company belonging to Polar Group as early as in 1994 the department was aware of the marketing pattern of the company. The relevant portion of the order quoted by the Tribunal is recorded as below : - We have perused the records and have heard the Ld. SDR also. It is clear that Revenue Authorities were aware of the marketing pattern of the appellant-companies. A show cause notice taking almost the same ground as raised in the present proceedings was issued by the Meerut Collectorate as early as 1994. The thrust of the allegations in that show-cause-notice was also that the manufacturing companies and the marketing company were re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be applied in the present case as well. It did not find the contentions raised on the ground of limitation to be sufficient and held that the demand beyond the normal period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is barred by limitation. The penalty on the appellant as well as its directors and officials was not found sustainable. 8. Learned counsel for the department states that it was incumbent upon the company to disclose its marketing pattern. The company was clearing fans without disclosing marketing pattern and thus the sale price could not constitute the correct assessable value clandestinely evading the excise duty and thus show cause notice was even beyond the period of limitation was valid. 9. The Tribunal has recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
