9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (4) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entary reply dated 24-1-1975. The above request for personal hearing was ignored and, therefore, the order is wrong and vitiated. (2) The demands have been made after a period of one year and should therefore be considered as time-barred. (Here it is necessary to state that the appellants are having the above plea on the ground that the date of demand should be taken as the date on which the appellants received the Adjudication Order). (3) The concerns of the two appellants are different and independent entities from that of M/s. Recold Appliances Pvt. Ltd. and the sales to the latter are in the normal course of business transactions. (4) The sales by the appellants are bulk sales and prices charged by them are their manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants 70-CE/Appl./DLH/75 ₹ 96,815.70 ₹ 58,948.40 85-CE/Appl./DLH/75 ₹ 76,407.68 Rs.33,736.36 3. I have examined very carefully all the above submissions and observe that the subject electrical appliances, which are manufactured by both the appellants, bear the brand name of M/s. Recold Appliances (P) Limited. They are manufactured by the appellants according to the contract and terms and conditions agreed upon which M/s. Recold Appliances (P) Ltd. The latter unit are the sole buyers of appliances bearing their brand name and they have also the exclusive right of sales pricing and distributio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said to be identical with the subject of two cases because the units on whose behalf M/s. Hind Lamps were at the time manufacturing electric bulbs etc. were the subsidiaries of M/s. Hind Lamps. Moreover each case has to be decided on its own merits. 5. I find in records a letter dated 10/14th April, 1975 from Shri K.R. Nagraja, Advocate, to the Assistant Collector, New Delhi, stating therein that they were not given an opportunity for personal hearing for which they had made a specific request in their supplementary reply dated 24th January, 1975. It appears that the letter dated 24th January, 1975 is not on record but when the Assistant Collector received the appellant s above letter dated, 10/14th April, 1975, he had already decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the period from April, 73 to June, 74, and in appeal No. 85-CE/Appll/DLH/75 duty was demanded vide show cause notice dated 21-8-1974 for the period from May, 73 to June 74. The appellants have contended in the written memo of the appeal that the demands for both the above periods were beyond one year and therefore they were ultra vires of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. The above position as given in the appeal is not factually correct because the entire periods for which the demands were issued are not beyond one year from the date of the show cause notice. Demand of duty for part to the period is however time barred. Records do not disclose the date on which the adjudication order was served on the appellants. Keeping in view th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
