TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tary Medicaments other than those medicaments which are exclusively Ayurvedic, Unani etc. They had been paying duty @ 16% ad valorem by classifying their products under Chapter sub-heading 3003.10 of the CETA. The duty had been confirmed against them for the years 1997-98 to 2001-02 on the ground that production of the medicines, such as, Tablets, Capsules Syrup shown in the balance sheets of all these years was much more than as reflected in the RT-12 returns. Before confirming the demand, they were served with a show cause notice wherein this ground was alleged and suppression of production was attributed to them. The appellants, however, denied the allegations of suppression of production and maintained that genuine mistakes took place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returns filed by them in those years. In the balance sheets, the production shown was more than that was reflected in the RT-12 returns by them. But, we find that the adjudicating authority in the impugned order has observed in these words "that he was of the view that there was genuine mistake in preparing the balance sheets and the same should be overlooked". He has also observed that the discrepancies in the RT-12 returns vis-a-vis balance sheets regarding the production for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, had been reconciled by the appellants and there existed no discrepancies. He had even dropped the duty demand for these years. For the previous years (1988-99), he has confirmed the duty by not accepting the explanation of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be invoked. There was no suppression of material facts by the appellants as the balance sheets prepared by them were publically available documents and copies of the same were sent to the Revenue also. The duty demand raised is apparently time-barred. In this view, we are fortified by the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Hindalco Indus. Ltd., v. CCE, Allahabad, 2003 (161) E.L.T. 346 (T), wherein also the demand was raised on the basis of the information appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee/company after invoking the extended period of limitation. But it was ruled that extended period could not be invoked as the balance sheets were publically available document and the demand was held to be time-barred against the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
