TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escalation was given. No such case was set up by the Revenue that the price was understated or depressed at the time of clearance of the goods and the additional amount was received subsequently, by a suspicious kind of arrangement. Even when the inquiries were made, we are conscious of the fact that the respondent-assessee had not appeared when summons were issued to clarify the position. However, in any case, the inquiries were made from M/s.Maruti and therefore, the concerned officer could find out from M/s. Maruti as to under what circumstances, price escalation was given and whether that was a factor contributing to the depression of price at the time of clearance of the goods. - it is difficult to hold that the aforesaid additional a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... followed by reminders, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. In these circumstances, the Department inquired from M/s.Maruti to furnish the details of additional amount paid to the respondent-assessee on account of price escalation. As per M/s.Maruti, a sum of ₹ 55,48,971.75/- was paid to the assessee during the period from 1996-1997 to 2000-2001 under the aforesaid Heading. It has resulted in the issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 04.01.2002 by the Adjudicating Authority, viz., Additional Commissioner of Central Excise (Anti Evasion), Delhi-III to the assessee under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and proviso to this provision was also invoked to avail the extended period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;Commissioner of Central Excise v. International Auto Ltd. [2010 (250) ELT 3 (SC)] wherein the judgment in the case of MRF Limited (supra) was taken note of and discussed. It is argued that this Court in the said case has categorically held that after the amendment in Section 11A of the Act, the MRF Limited (supra) will have no application. We have gone through the judgment in International Auto Ltd. (supra). In that case, the issue was whether the interest was not leviable under Section 11AB of the Act particularly in view of the fact that the price indicated in the purchase orders were final during the period of supply of goods. It is in that context, the entire discussion takes place in the judgment and on that basis, the Court remark ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
