9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement of the respondent appear to be an afterthought, particularly, for the reason that the respondent have not led any evidence which will indicate that the goods, in question, were not sold under the brand of M/s Soft Pharmaceutical or M/s Pharmaceutical were promoter of the said product. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the respondent had today produced packing box of one of the product ‘Vigor Plus’. On perusal of the packing, we find that this bears logo of Soft Pharmaceutical. Therefore, it is apparent that the Respondent were clearing the goods under the brand name of M/s Soft Pharmaceutical. Though the name of M/s Soft Pharmaceutical has been shown as promoter but they cannot be termed as distributor of goods for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 22.1.2004 confirmed the duty demand of Rs.1,00,494/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount on the respondent under section 11AC. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), this order of the Assistant Commissioner was set aside vide order in appeal dated 16.3.2005 on merits as well as on the issue of limitation. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed by the Revenue. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Shri M.S.. Negi, leaned DR, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal in the Revenue s appeal and pleaded that Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the matter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department from time to time, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent practiced fraud by concealment of facts with a view to evade excise duty. As such, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly concluded that the show cause notice was barred by limitation. In the alternative, it was contended that if the respondent s plea is not accepted, even then, hundred percent penalty on the respondent is not sustainable in view of the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd.v s. Union of India 2008 (85) RLT 483 (Del.), as the entire disputed amount of duty had been paid much before the adjudication but still the order in original passed by the Assistant Commissioner did not give an option to the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the goods were sold under his brand name and not of M/s Soft pharmaceutical, Chandigarh and they are not paying any royalty to the said firm. The second statement of the respondent appear to be an afterthought, particularly, for the reason that the respondent have not led any evidence which will indicate that the goods, in question, were not sold under the brand of M/s Soft Pharmaceutical or M/s Pharmaceutical were promoter of the said product. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the respondent had today produced packing box of one of the product Vigor Plus . On perusal of the packing, we find that this bears logo of Soft Pharmaceutical. Therefore, it is apparent that the Respondent were clearing the goods under the brand n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
