2006 (11) TMI 663

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peals) vide which he has set aside the demand against the respondents and penalties imposed upon them by holding the same as barred by limitation, though on merits, he has held against the respondents. 2. After hearing both the sides, it is seen that show cause notice dated 8-4-99 raising demands of duty against the respondents in respect of P.D. Pumps manufactured and cleared by them during the period 1994 to 1998 on the alleged ground that they were using the brand name 'Rotodel' belonging to DEL and as such, were not entitled to the benefit of small scale notification exemption. The notice invoked the longer period of limitation. The same was adjudicated by the Additional commissioner confirming demand of duties and imposing pena....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t is based on entries made in a private diary that was recovered during the search operation. No invoices were issued while extending free replacements, as admitted by Shri Niranjan Deliwala. Upon perusing the fine print of show cause notice, it is seen that both FSI and ROTODEL are charged with suppressing the fact of using others brand name in their invoices, statutory returns as well as classification declarations filed under Rule 173B of Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is however amazing to note that the entire demand is worked out by resorting to the copies of invoices that were submitted by the appellants along with their RT-12 returns from time to time. That such RT-12 returns were positively filed is evident from the dated acknowledg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....statutory invoices clearly notifying clearances of 'ROTODEL' brand goods failed to catch the eye of audit groups who, as can be gathered form their endorsements, conducted test checks of these units on a periodical basis. On account of all these reasons, there remains no vindication for application of the proviso to section 11A that permits demand of duty over and above the normal period of six months. The impugned order does not explain how department could still remain oblivious of the glaring evidences which the aforesaid tools display and despite the fact that department come across them on more than occasions, the lower authority found it apt to saddle the appellants with the extended liability. In the result, I hold that demand on thi....