TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for demanding the differential duty alongwith interest and imposing penalty on all the appellants under the provisions of Central Excise Act/Rules. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturers of aerated waters and they are clearing the goods on payment of excise duty. During the course of investigation, it was found that the appellants are collecting additional charges on account of sales promotion, publicity and bottle cleaning charges from the customers on which they are not discharging their duty liability. Therefore, show-cause notices were issued to the appellants for the period July,1996 to December, 1996, January, 1997 to May, 1997 and June, 1997 to July, 1997 on 4.2. 1997, 30.6.1997 and 27.8.1997 respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that on merits also they have a case in their favour specifically for cleaning charges of the bottles. In support of this contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Vijayawada Bottling Co. Ltd. vs CCE, Guntur reported in 1997 (94) ELT 433 (S.C.) wherein the Hon'ble apex court has held that cleaning of bottles does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 4. Shri Y.K.Agarwal, the ld.SDR for the department submitted that in this case, the appellants have not specifically filed their price declaration and no details of debit notes issued by them for collecting additional charges was brought to the notice of the Revenue. Therefore, these facts have been suppressed by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter. It has been held that in such circumstances, it could not be said that there was any wilful suppression or misstatement and that therefore, the extended period under Sec.11A could not be invoked. The same view was affirmed by the Hon'ble apex court in the case of ECE Industries Ltd (supra). Therefore, we hold that in this case also the show-cause notice issued to the appellants on 1.4.1999 invoking the extended period of limitation for the period 1.3.1994 to 31.10.1995 is barred by limitation. With regard to the issue of cleaning charges of bottles, we hold that the issue has reached finality by the decision of the Hon'ble apex court in the case of Vijayawada Bottling Co.Ltd. (supra). Therefore, we need not to go in that issue. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
