9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed a classification list effective from 1.4.1992 with the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Udaipur, claiming exemption under small scale industries notification No. 175/1986 dated 1.3.1986 for clearance of aerated waters bearing the brand Citra , The present disputes covers the period 5.4.1992 to 31.5.1992 (Appeal No. E/1828/2007 ) and June, 1993 to November 1993 (Appeal No. E/2359/2007 ). The show cause notice invoking the extended period of limitation in the first case was issued on 16.3.1997 and the second case was issued on 3.1.1994. The Central Excise duty has been demanded for the reason that the goods manufactured have been cleared bearing the brand name Citra which belongs to another company who is not entitled to the small scal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d submitted that a part of the demand will be hit by bar of limitation in the second show cause notice. They have also submitted that since the facts are known to the department, inasmuch as the classification list has been filed in 1992, which has been approved, the entire demand will be hit by time limitation as the department will not be entitled to demand duty invoking the extended period of limitation. 5. The crux of the issue in the present appeals is use of brand name Citra on the aerated water manufactured by the appellant. The claim of small scale industries benefit was originally availed by the appellant by submitting that brand name is owned by M/s. Limca Flavour and Fragrance Ltd., who were entitled to SSI benefit. But the inve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion, the Apex Court has held that once a Show cause notice stand issued, issuance of second show cause notice on the same facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of assessee. In respect of second show cause notice, we find that a portion of demand fall beyond the period of normal time limit as prescribed under section 11A at the relevant time. Consequently, the demand in the second show cause notice beyond the period of six months will be hit by time bar. The original adjudicating authority is directed to requantify the demand by excluding the demand beyond the period of six months time. However, demand covered by the first show cause notice is upheld in toto along with consequential relief. We also set aside the penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
