Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (9) TMI 1208

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was taken up. Shri AM Pitke, Excise officer, initially submitted that they will submit all the documents pertaining to the clearance of the said pillow. However, he did not respond to the repeated summons issued over a period of one year. Later on, it was informed that Shri Pitke has left the organisation. Similarly, Shri M.J. Parikh, Finance manager of the appellant firm was also summoned number of time but he also did not produce the documents corresponding to these invoices. However, later on after about a year Shri Parikh claimed that these pillows were lying in stock since 1994 and were badly damaged and so they sold these pillows in 1999 at low rate of Rs. 10 per pillow. However, he could not justify from the records vis. RG-1 that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that copy of the invoices were available with the department and they could have made enquiry with the buyer of the goods to ascertain the fact but that was not done by the department. He further submitted that these transactions have taken place in 1999 and the show-cause notice has been issued in 2004 by invoking the extended period of limitation. Ld. counsel submitted that there is no reason to invoke extended period of limitation as all the facts were known to the department and they had not suppressed anything from the department. 3. Ld. AR on the other hand, submitted that the conduct of the appellant from the beginning was evasive. During investigation, the excise in charge had promised to produce the documents but did not respond .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4 (314) ELT 571 3) Phoenix Mills ltd. vs. UOI 2004 (168) ELT 310 4) Unit Paints & Chemical Co. P. Ltd. 2015 (320) ELT 235 5) CST vs. ITC Ltd. 2014 (36) STR 481 6) Rajendra Jagannath Parekh 2004 (175) ELT 238 7) Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. CCE 1996 (82) ELT 33 4. Ld. counsel in rebuttal submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Fiat India P. Ltd. (supra) supports him in para 50, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that there can be case when manufacturer may sold the goods at lower price if goods are not sold within reasonable time. It was also submitted that RG-1 account is already with department and internal production report was also submitted. It is also submitted that it is for the revenue to prove the da .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... report of the Tailoring department in M/s. Hitkari Fibres Ltd. Mahad for the year 1994. However, on scrutiny of the said production reports, Shri M.J. Parekh could not show that the 3928 pieces of luxury pillows under contention (size 17" X 27") were actually manufactured during the year 1994. Further Shri Parekh was asked to submit the relevant RG1 (i.e. stock register) maintained in the factory for the period from 1994 to 1999 to substantiate his explanation that the said luxury pillows was manufactured in the year 1994 and continued to remain in stock till the year 1999. However, Shri M.J. Parekh FAILED TO ESTABLISH the basic requirement that there was a non moving stock of the said luxury pillows (17" X 27") in the factory for the year .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... riod of limitation cannot be invoked as all the information was available with the department. We are not impressed with the said argument. The appellant were doing self assessment at the relevant time and the fact that they have sold the pillow at such a low price was suppressed and in our view the extended period of limitation has been correctly invoked. We therefore do not find any merits in this contention. For the same reason penalty under Section 11AC is also upheld. Interest under Section 11AB will also be chargeable. Ld. AR has submitted number of case laws. We do not consider it necessary to discuss the case laws as this is a fact based case and the position would change from fact to fact of each case. 9. In the result, appeal is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates