9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g company and the marketing company is also dealing with other goods like switches and the departmental investigations revealed that these products are not marketed under the brand name ‘Farcom’ - demand upheld. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - since the appellant has not suppressed the facts from the Department and entertained a bona fide belief that the royalty amount is not to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are engaged in the manufacture of electric wires, cables and connectors falling under Chapter 8544 and 8536.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of audit, the Department found that the appellants are clearing wires and cables through M/s. Farcom Marketing Services Inc. and apart from realization of payment as per the Bills, they were also receiving amount as royalty under an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has gone beyond the scope of show-cause notice and the Commissioner (A) has failed to note that the royalty amount was received only in connection with the permission given by them to the marketing company for using the name Farcom for their company. There is no connection at all of this royalty amount with the manufactured goods and sold by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) has given reasons for holding that the royalty amount should be added in the assessable value and the appellant is liable to pay duty on them. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the impugned order, we find that there is no infirmity in the impugned order wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there was no intention to evade payment of duty. Therefore, in our considered view the appellant is only liable to duty for the normal period and not for the extended period. Therefore, we partly allow the appeal of the assessee by holding that he is liable to pay the duty for the normal period. It has also come on record that the appellant has already paid an amount of ₹ 1,31,393/- being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
