9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ptive consumption in the manufacture of electric hoists and filing price lists in Part vi(b) in respect of rotor-stator assemblies and price lists in Part I in respect of brake motors, the price of the former being much less than the price of the later. Price lists were approved and RT 12 assessments were being finalised from time to time. The dispute in this appeal relates to the period from 1-4-1985 to 28-2-1986. Show cause notice dated 27-6-1986 was issued stating that rotor-stator assembly is the same as brake motor and since the appellant was clearing brake motors to buyers and the factory gate price of brake motors was available, in respect of rotor-stator also price lists should have been filed under Part I adopting the same price in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also different. Thus, according to the appellant, the two goods are not comparable at all. The department rubutted these contentions. Shri K. Srivastava, SDR took us through the impugned order where the Additional Collector had supported the comparability of the two goods. We do not propose to go into the merits since we are satisfied that the appellant is entitled to succeed on the plea of limitation. 5. Appellant has been manufacturing electric hoists and also rotor-stator assembly and brake motors since 1965, all along filing two sets of price lists, namely, under Part vi(b) for rotor-stator assembly and the other under Part I in respect of brake motors, the price shown in the former being always much less than the price shown fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apprised the appellant about it and when the appellant denied the correctness of the stand of the audit party, the mater was allowed to rest there. In the circumstances, there can be no question of the appellant during the period from 1-4-1982 to 28-2-1986 suppressing any facts or misdeclaring prices or intending to evade duty. The later objection raised by the audit party in November, 1986 resulted in the show cause notice nearly one and half years later. The show cause notice did not contain any explanation about the long delay in issuing the show cause notice. Having regard to all the circumstances, we hold that the appellant was not guilty of deliberate suppression of facts or misdeclaration of prices or with intent to evade duty. On th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
