2008 (9) TMI 676

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant. Shri N.J. Kumaresh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. -  M/s. Chennai Bottling Co. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the assessee, are aggrieved by the demand of duty of Rs. 98,851/- and penalty of Rs. 70,000/-, while Shri C.A. Ramarathinam, Deputy General Manager (Finance) of the company, is aggrieved by personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The im....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-98 was issued to the assessee demanding differential duty in respect of the goods cleared to M/s. SSDL during the period of dispute, proposing penalties on the assessee and their Deputy General Manager etc. This notice invoked the larger period of limitation on the alleged ground of suppression of facts by the assesseee. The allegations in the SCN were denied and the proposal for recovery of duty....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... demand of differential duty from the assessee. As rightly pointed out by the ld. counsel, if the finding of "relationship" cannot be sustained on facts, the Commissioner's order is bound to be set aside. In this context, the ld. Counsel has referred to Order-in-Appeal No. 43/99 (M-II) (D) dt. 31-12-99 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. In the said Order-in-Appeal, the appel....