2015 (1) TMI 1213

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,241/- and Rs. 31,927/- being the duty involved in the raw material as well as finished goods respectively found short confirmed in the Order-in-Original no 70/CEX//Jt. Comm/2003 dated 30/6/2003. The fact of the case is that the respondent, M/s. Terraco India Pvt. Ltd (TIPL) is engaged in the manufacture of Cement Paints and grouts falling under Chapter sub heading 3209.10 and 3209.90 respectively of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under brand name PAGEL, which is owned by M/s. Pagel Concrete Technologies Limited(PCTL). First show cause notice bearing no. V(32) 15/279/ADJ/2001/3041 dated 1/05/2001 for the period April 1996-March 2000 demanding duty of Rs. 14,21,513/- and another show cause notice V(32)/15/5/ADJ/2002/1591 issued on 20/3/2002....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n behalf of the Revenue submits that relationship between M/s. TIPL and M/s. PCTL clearly established inasmuch as Managing Director Shri. Jai Daulat Advani of M/s. TIPL, is also Chairman of M/s. PCTL. Shri. Jai Daulat Advani alongwith his relative holding majority shares in both the companies. The brand name of PAGEL was allowed to be used by M/s. TIPL. Such branded goods manufactured by M/s. TIPL is purchased by PAGEL at very lower value as compared to the prices at which the goods are sold to the independent customer. He submits that all these factors are more than sufficient to hold that both are related person and therefore the price is not the sole consideration. It is his submission that the value at which the goods is sold 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

....rder given following findings:- 21. Next comes the question of limitation involved in the subject demands. It may be seen that the department has proposed to recover differential duty of Rs. 14,21,513/-and Rs. 2,63, 426/- during the periods from April 1996 to March 2000 and from April 2000 to March 2001 respectively. The SCN in the former case was issued on 01.05.2001 and in the later cae on 08.03.2002 by invoking extended time period clause of proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act. The Appellants contentions are that the demands in question were barred by limitation inasmuch as their unit profile had been submitted to the Superintendne, Central Excise i/c of the unit indicating that their unit had been visited and audited in March....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not have been pressed into service for demanding any differential duty for any period subsequent to 22/09/1999. The extended time period could have been invoked for 5 years period prior to 22/9/1998. But in that case also, since the Appellants unit has regularly been audited by the internal as well as external audit and no such discrepancies were ever noticed by the department, the extended time period clause may not be invoked in such cases too. Therefore, on limitation also there seems to be no case for the department. From the above findings it is clear that the suppression of fact or any other ingredients of proviso to 11A is not established therefore the demand is time bar. As regard the contention of the Revenue that the responden....