2012 (2) TMI 625

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tral Excise Act, 1944 on the ground that there is no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty is the question raised in this appeal? 2. The respondent/assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing excisable goods such as semi-synthetic penicillin, Amoxicilin Trihydrate, Ampicilin Trihydrate, Coaxicillin Sodium and their derivatives and cefadroxil, which were cleared for export t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... licences cannot be regarded as additional consideration. 4. Later on, the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. IFGL Refractories Limited reported in 2005 (186) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.) held that such additional consideration must be included in the value of the goods sold by the manufacturer. 5. Based on the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the excise authorities, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e assessee had sold the goods with a view to acquire advance licences was a factor known to the Revenue right from inception. In fact, the duty demand by invoking the larger period of limitation has been claimed on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of IFGL Refractories Limited (supra) and not on account of any suppression on the part of the assessee. 8. In these circums .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X