TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd is exactly same for the same period. This demand is also based on the balance sheet of the principal. In other words, after the conclusion of the first proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner, no new development took place. There was no seizure of any new document. All the documents which were available during the first proceedings formed the basis of the second proceedings. In the first proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner has dropped the demand. Against the Assistant Commissioner's order, the Revenue has gone in appeal which is yet to be decided. Thus, we strongly feel that there is no point in the Commissioner initiating a second proceedings for the same period and for the same amount invoking longer period. There i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sultant and Shri T. Ramesh, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, learned SDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 3. The learned Consultant brought to the notice of the Bench that the same issue has been decided by the Assistant Commissioner in his adjudication Order No. 60/97, dated 11-8-97 for the same period and for the same amount. In these proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner, inter alia, dropped the demand on the ground that the price lists which have been approved by the Department are not provisional but final. He was not in a position to confirm the demand. The Revenue was aggrieved over that portion of the Assistant Commissioner's order dropping the demand and has gone in an appeal t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t drop the proceedings on merit. Under these circumstances, there is nothing wrong in the Commissioner issuing a show cause notice invoking extended period on account of suppression of facts. Hence, he urged the Bench to uphold the Order-in-Original. 5. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings on the ground that the price lists were not provisionally approved, but have become final. There is no indication from the records that the appellants had suppressed any facts. In fact, based only on the balance sheet of the appellants' principal the demand was made. In the second show cause notice issued by the Commissioner, the amount of demand is exactly same for the same period. Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that repeated show cause notice for the same period after the case has been dropped by the Assistant Commissioner is hit by res judicata and no new material has come into the hands of the Revenue. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore v. Siddharth Tubes Ltd. [2004 (170) E.L.T. 331 (Tri. - Del.) has held that the issuance of a second show cause notice on the same issue and period after gathering additional information/material cannot be issued when one has already been issued earlier. Similar view has been held in the case of Nestle India Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh-II [2004 (176) E.L.T. 314 (T) = 2004 (63) RLT 586 (CESTAT - Del.)]. Another important point should be borne-in-mind by the Revenue. It is possible that s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
