TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tire production is sold to Polar International Ltd., who in turn sells the fans to dealers. All these appellants are Public Limited Companies. The remaining appellants are Officers of these Limited Companies. The impugned order has held that the manufacturing companies and the marketing company are related persons and therefore, the assessable value for Central Excise duty purposes should be the sale price of the marketing company and not the sale price of the manufacturing company to the marketing companies (Proviso (iii) to Section 4(1) (a) of the Central Excise Act. However, the assessees paid duty at the time of clearance, taking the sale price to the marketing company as the assessable value. The impugned order has, therefore, reassess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not attracted as there was no wilful suppression or misstatement of facts, in order to justify duty demand beyond the normal period. 4. During the hearing of the case, learned Counsel took us through the records of earlier proceedings and pointed out that it was well known to the revenue authorities that appellant manufacturers were selling their fans through the group marketing Co. He referred to the earlier Show Cause Notice dated 25-8-1994 issued by the Meerut Collectorate against the appellants alleging that the appellant manufacturers and the marketing company were related persons. The Counsel pointed out that the proceedings so initiated led to the passing of Order-in-Original No. 01 X 02/Commr. 97, dated 16-1-97 holding that the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts, which have been brought out in these proceedings, but were not before the ld. Authorities for their kind perusal and examination. 5. The learned Counsel has also submitted that the appellants have a strong case on merits, inasmuch as, the transaction between the manufacturing companies and the marketing company was a purely commercial relationship. He submitted that this position would be clear when the marketing company s sale price (after making necessary deductions towards freight, taxes, cash discount and transit insurance) is compared with the purchase price from the manufacturing Cos. The learned Counsel pointed out that all these elements are eligible deductions and the profit after deductions was very small. All the same, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xamined in isolation and that it resulted in the proverbial vision of an elephant . Such a finding cannot constitute the basis for re-opening the proceedings in terms of Proviso to Section 11A. Despite knowledge of facts, if revenue took a blinkered view, the assessee cannot be blamed for it. Admittedly, bulk of the demand is beyond the permissible time limit. In these facts and circumstances, the demand made for the extended period has to fail at the threshold on the ground of limitation. We are not going into the merits of the case, as the assessees do not consider this an appropriate case to press their submissions on merits. They are right in their submission that even the demand within the normal time limit is required to be re-compu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
