2010 (7) TMI 867

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... which were being supplied by them exclusively to M/s. CHT India Pvt. Ltd. The said M/s. CHT India, during the relevant period, was a joint venture company formed by CHT Germany and Merchant group. The appellant entered into an agreement with them on 28-5-96 for the supply of bulk drugs at the decided value between two of them. The appellants were served with show cause notice on 10-1-05, proposing confirmation of duty on the ground that post amendment to Section 4 of Central Excise Act with effect from 1-7-00, the appellant and the buyer company have to be treated as related person and the price at which CHT is selling the goods had to be adopted as assessable value. Demand was raised for the period till 5-7-2001, as from that date onwards....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the appellant's jurisdictional Central Excise authority raised an identical enquiry against the appellant in the year 1996. For better appreciation, we reproduce the letter dt. 22-11-96, written by Superintendent to the assessee. "Office of Superintendent of Central Excise, A.R.I,DTV-I, Ahmedabad F.No.A.R.I/Misc/CHT/96-97/1664                    Date : 22-11-96 To M/s. Halcyon Labs Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 409, GIDC, Naroda, Ahmedabad Sub : Sale price of your product 'MEROPAN. BRE:. During the course of verification of invoices of your registered dealer M/s. CHT (India) Pvt. Ltd., Naroda, it has been noticed that you have sold ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....atisfy your enquiry. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Halcyon Labs Pvt. Ltd. Sd/- Plant Manager" 7. As is clear from the above that the enquiries were raised against the appellant in the year 1996 involving very same issue of undervaluation of their final product. The said enquiry raised by the Superintendent was duly answered by the appellant. Thereafter, no further proceedings were initiated. It can be safely concluded that the entire facts were in the knowledge of the department in the year 1996 itself. As such, the demand of duty raised in January 2005 is clearly beyond the limitation period. Arguments of the learned SDR that new Section 4 came into force in 2000 itself and as such the enquiry raised in 1996 will no....