2014 (1) TMI 670

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellant for the period 2002-03 to 2004-05, it was found that there was a difference in the amounts reflected in the profit and loss account of the appellant and the ST-3 returns filed with the revenue. Show cause notice for the period 2002 to March 2005 was issued to the appellant on 26/9/2007 which was decided by Jt Commissioner, S.T., Ahmedabad under OIO No. STC/87/Joint Commr/08 dt 20/2/08 confirming demand of Rs 14,87,288/- alongwith interest. Penalties were also imposed under Sec. 76 and 78 of the Customs Act 1994. An appeal against the said OIO dt 20/2/2008 was filed before the First Appellate Authority which was rejected by Commissioner (A) under OIA dt 27.2.2009/5.3.09 against which the present appeal has been filed by the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The case was agitated by the appellant only on the issue that demand in the present proceedings is time barred. First argument taken by the appellant is that their balance sheets are public documents as being filed with the Registrar of Companies under Companies Act and extended period will not be applicable It is observed from the judgment of Bangalore Bench in the case of CCE, Calicut vs. Steel Industries Kerala Ltd (Supra) that this issue is no more res integra. In Para 3 of this decision, after relying upon the case law of M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd vs CCE, New Delhi [2001(134) ELT 209], the following was held:          We find that in the case of ....