TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 702
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of limitation has given observations that for application of unjust-enrichment on the amount of demands paid by the respondent, the demand of duty and interest is not enforceable beyond the normal period of one year. 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the course of audit of the respondent assessee, it was observed that appellant is selling its finished goods at the factory gate as well as to its related concern M/s. Patel Brothers as their Partners/ Directors are common. A show cause notice dated 31.08.2002 was issued to the appellant by the adjudicating authority for recovery of Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,44,374/- for the period 2000-01 to 2005-06. It was also proposed in the show cause notice to recover interest and impose ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dit in 1998 merely 25% of respondent's sale were made through its related persons. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in this case is whether extended period is invokable to the existing facts and circumstances and whether penalty is imposable upon the respondent under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Respondent was selling its goods predominantly at the factory gate to independent buyers and merely 25% of its clearances were made through sister concern M/s. Patel Brothers. Respondent did not dispute the duty liability for the entire period and the same was paid before the issue of show cause notice. On the time bar issue, it is the case of the respondent that their records were audited ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents and value which enhanced or increased the marketability of the product manufactured by M/s. Kartick Engg. Pvt. Limited through M/s. Patel Brothers. The appellant No. 1 has brought on record the copies of invoices and the RG-1 record which evidences that the audit was conducted in April 1998 and that their marketing pattern and manufacturing patter remained one and the same for entire period of business since commencement of both units. There is no allegation what-so-ever in the body of show cause notice, nor in the findings of the adjudicating authority which warrants any inference or conclusion, about the misdeclaration, collusion or any act of commission or omission which could be termed such as having been done with an intent to eva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nciple of unjust enrichment, but that on grounds of limitation, the demand for duty and interest is not enforceable beyond normal period of one year." 6. It may be relevant to note that first appellate authority has elaborately discussed and held that demand of duty and interest is not enforceable beyond the period of one year but at the same time has also held that duty amount already paid by the respondent may not be refunded to the respondent on the principles of unjust enrichment. No appeal seems to have been filed by the respondent on these observations. On the issue of application of extended period, it is the case of the Revenue that the documents like invoices or balance sheet are not supplied along with monthly/quarterly returns....