2016 (5) TMI 1316

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ri L.P. Asthana and Ms. Shreya Dahiya, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Jt. Commissioner (DR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (T)]. - These 5 (five) appeals are arising out of the same Order-in-Original dated 7th April, 2005. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants, M/s. Residency Foods & Beverages Ltd., are manufactur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....undertake all advertisement, publicity and sales promotion programme, at their own cost. TSL was to bear the cost of marketing and distribution. Through the impugned order, the differential duty of Rs. 2,61,81,808/- was confirmed and penalty was imposed. Further, personal penalties were imposed on four co-noticees (Director, Manager). 3. The ld. Counsels for the appellants, pleaded that in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itled for the above stated deductions. Further, they contended that through a letter dated 20-6-1995, jurisdictional Assistant Collector informed them as follows : "Now that the Directorate General of Anti-Evasion, New Delhi has completed investigation in regard to few bottles (as informed vide DOC No. 160/INI/DGAE/HO/94/2396/1-5-1995) as in the light of the findings of the Directorate General ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on share holding between the appellants and M/s. Taj Services Ltd. and also there is a common management between the two and therefore, they are related persons. He also contended that the appellants have advanced an interest free loan for about of Rs. 2.00 crores. He further contended that in the present case, extended period of limitation was invocable. 5. We have carefully gone through ....