TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority. Therefore the appellants are aggrieved over the Impugned order and have come before this Tribunal for relief. Held that- we find that the appellants had filed the declarations regarding price reduction after the transfer of technical know-how and also the manufacturing agreement. In such circum stances, it cannot be said that there was suppression of facts with an intent to evade duty. Therefore the said order has become final. In view of all the above points, we do not find any merit in the impugned order. There fore we set aside the same and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. - E/430/2006 - 1011/2009 - Dated:- 7-5-2009 - S/Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, 2001/2002 on the appellants. The appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority. Therefore the appellants are aggrieved over the Impugned order and have come before this Tribunal for relief. 4. The following contentions were made by the appellants (i) The first point made was the demand is barred by limitation. There is no finding that failure to furnish information with was intend to evade payment of duty. Mere failure is not sufficient in law. Failure coupled with intend alone will justify the invoking of extended period. In the absence of any finding of 'intent to evade' demand can not be sustained. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: (i) Conti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the show cause notice, the relevant date cannot be determined and therefore the show cause notice cannot be sustained. This is fundamental error in the show cause notice. In identical case arising out of the same investigation, the proceedings were dropped by the Commissioner of Central Excise, in the case of M/s. Wintac Ltd. holding that the show cause notice was fundamentally erroneous on this ground, in Order-in-Original No.1/2006 dated 31-1-2006. The same has become final having been accepted by the department. (v) Rule 6 of Valuation Rules is inapplicable, since there was no technical know how supplied, by the buyer, to the appellant, in as much as the appellant already had the requisite knowledge. (vi) Even otherwise, it is on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same cannot be added to assessable value. Reliance is placed on the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of CCE v. Tide Industries [1999(111) E.L.T. 555 (T) which has been confirmed by the Apex Court in 2000(116) E.L.T. A70. (xi) None of the above contentions urged have been considered by the appellate authority. The order passed by the appellate authority is without application of mind and thus a non-speaking order. 5. The learned Departmental Representative reiterated the impugned order. 6. On a very careful consideration of the Issue, we find that the appellants had filed the declarations regarding price reduction after the transfer of technical know-how and also the manufacturing agreement. In such circum stances, it cannot be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
