2010 (11) TMI 82

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the manufacturer of ice-cream falling under sub-heading No. 2105.00. During the period for 1994-95 to 1998-99 (upto 2/99) manufactured item was leviable to Central Excise Duty at ad valorem rates. On14-10-1994, M/s. Monsanto along with other companies (which are collectively referred to as "K-NORTH") entered into an agreement with Brooke Bond upton India Ltd. (for short 'BBLIL') and Unilever Industry Pvt. Ltd. known as the sourcing agreement. Under the said agreement BBLIL was to place an order on K-NORTH which including M/s. Monsanto for manufacture of the ice-cream. The products were to be sold by M/s. Monsanto as per a formula agreed between the parties expressly incorporated in the said agreement. The agreement came into force w.e.f.1s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n inter alia contending that the transaction between M/s. Monsanto and BBLIL/HLL was on a principal to principal basis with price as a sole consideration for the sale of the manufactured products. It was also contended that the sourcing agreement dated14th October, 1994, on which the entire transaction was being carried on, was made available to the Department in March-April, 1995. There was no suppression of facts on the part of the assessee. The contention was the show cause notice issued in respect of a period from February, 1995 to February, 1999 was barred by limitation. 3. The Commissioner rejected all the contentions raised by M/s. Monsanto on the issue of limitation. The Commissioner took the view that full details of settle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der Section 11A of the Act. The Tribunal found that the show cause notice issued on27-3-2000was hopelessly barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that the agreement entered into by and between the parties was made available to the Department and all transactions between the parties thereto were on the basis of the agreement which were within the knowledge of the Department from March-April, 1995. The Tribunal found that there was no material available on record that the assessee has received either directly or indirectly any consideration from any source outside the agreement. Hence, these appeals under Section 35-L(b) of the Act. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that mere filing of the agreement by the assessee ....