Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2009 (6) TMI 270

..... ct. – Ground plan approved by department showing location of machinery for manufacture of sugar syrup and acknowledged modvat declaration showing it as inputs - it can be concluded that the department was having full knowledge about the preparation of Sugar Syrup by the appellant at the intermediate stage and no charge of suppression can be alleged against the appellants. - it cannot be said that the assessees had suppressed anything from the department so as to make the extended period of limitation available to the department. - In the cross-objection filed by respondents, no relief is sought for as the impugned order is entirely in their favour. The cross-objection is, therefore, to be treated as comments on and reply to the Revenue’s ap .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... d also rejected the contention of the assessees that the demand was barred by limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessees both on merits as well as on limitation; hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides. Although arguments are advanced that product is not marketable for the reason that although citric acid is added to the sugar syrup, the solid soluble content of sugar is not in excess of 65% and such percentage would render the product unstable with limited shelf life (although test report shows that solid soluble content of sugar is a little over 67%, ld. counsel for the respondents submits that this is due to the testing being carried out by Lane and Eynon method which is not a re .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... ellants. The CEGAT in CCE, Indore v. Venkatesh Beverages had held a similar view in identical circumstances in regard to suppression of facts. Respectfully following the ratio held by Tribunal, I, therefore, hold that extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A(1) cannot be invoked in the appellants case. 3. We find that in the case of Venkatesh Beverages reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 75 (T) = 2001 (42) RLT 740, (relied upon in the present impugned order for setting aside the demand on merits), the Tribunal upheld the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that since L4 licence and the ground plan clearly showed that intermediate product sugar syrup arose in the manufacture of fruit pulp based beverages, it cannot be said that .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||