2001 (5) TMI 598

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion 11A(1) of CE Act and has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Rules. By the same order, he has agreed with the assessee's contention that for arriving at the assessable value, the value declared in the invoice be treated as cum-duty price and allowed deductions on this count. The Revenue is aggrieved on this aspect of the matter. 2. We have heard both sides in the case. Ld. D.R. submits that appellants are not entitled to the deductions on cum-duty price as clearances had been made without payment of duty and question of giving deduction does not arise. On this point, ld. Advocate pointed out that this issue is now fully settled in terms of Larger Bench judgment rendered in the case of Sri Chakra Tyres ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Engineering Ltd. had machineries and the same were utilised by this new firm along with their officers. They also used their sales invoice besides using their Sales Tax Registration Number. However, there was no financial flow back and the said misuse of Sales Tax Registration Certificate and Sales Tax Invoice did not disentitle the new unit from claiming the benefit and the clearances made by the new firm cannot be said to be that of the clearances of the appellants. He further submitted that when the show cause notice was issued on 1-3-1995 with regard to the demands pertaining to the period 1992-93 then it is clearly barred by time as department had recorded the statement on 4-3-1993 itself. The show cause notice issued after a long lap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n merits. The new unit had only filed a declaration form. There was no factory existing in their name. The same factory of the appellants continued to function and the Sales Tax Registration Number and Sales Invoices were raised in the appellant's name. Therefore, it cannot be said that factory was leased to the new firm and the new firm was merely misusing the Registration Certificate and there was no flow back. The Commissioner has discussed the issue in detail and in identical situation, Tribunal had rejected similar contentions as noted by the Commissioner in Supreme Engineering Works [1996 (82) E.L.T. 102] and Ganapai Mechanical Products (Order No. 674/96). In view of these findings recorded by the Commissioner on merits and the same b....