TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007-DB with Cross-Objection No.116 of 2007-DB - A/12661/2017 - Dated:- 20-9-2017 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member(Technical) Present Shri S.N. Gohil, A.R. for the Appellant-Revenue Present Ms. Dimple Gohil, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This Appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.89 90/2007 (Adh-I) dated 28.2.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of cotton and man-made fabrics and cleared the same to their subsidiary M/s Raghuvir Exim Ltd. during the period from February 2003 to March 2004 on paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was no suppression of facts as all the facts were within the knowledge of the department, hence, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. It is his contention that even if the fact that M/s Raghuvir Exim Ltd., a 100% subsidiary had been mentioned in their respective Balance Sheets, but it was not specifically disclosed to the department. 4. Ld. Advocate for the Respondents has submitted that fabrics were cleared by them to their subsidiary Unit, M/s Raghuvir Exim Ltd. which were used for making textile artcles and the entire quantity ultimately exported, under rebate. It is her contention that the removal of goods to their sister concern were disclosed in their ER-1 return filed from time to time. It is her further contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lliwolf Ltd. Vs. UOI - 1992 (59) ELT 220 (Bom.); Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C.E Cus. - 2002 (143) ELT 244 (SC). 6. In his rejoinder, the ld. A.R. for the Revenue has submitted that in view of amendment to Section 4 with effect from 01.7.2000, a subsidiary company being included in the scope of the said definition and hence the principle of law settled earlier cannot be made applicable. In support of his submission, ld. A.R. has referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.,Chennai - 2008 (228) ELT 598 (Tri-Chennai). 7. Heard both sides and perused the record. The short issue raised by the Revenue in the present case is: whether the demand issued to the Respondent invoking ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of said clearances including their relation with M/s Raghuvir Exim Ltd. Besides, it also weighs in favour of the Respondent as recorded by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the entire fabrics cleared to M/s Raghuvir Exim Ltd. had been ultimately exported and the duty paid was received as rebate by M/s Raghuvir Exim Ltd. In these circumstances, therefore, the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty short paid due to incorrect determination of assessable value, cannot be sustained. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the Appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid of merit is dismissed. 8. However, we find force in the argument of the ld. A.R. for the Revenue with regard to the merits o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|