POLAR INDUSTRIES Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are appeals at the instance of the assessee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner dtd. 30.4.03. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of fans, water lifting pumps etc. and they sell their finished goods through another limited company M/s. Polar International Ltd. Balance sales is effected to independent buyers like DGS&D etc. SCN dt. 4.8.99 was issued to the appellant proposing duty demand and imposition of penalty alleging that the appellant and PNL are related persons and, therefore, the appellant should have paid excise duty on the selling price of PNL. The demand under SCN was confirmed by the Commissioner and he imposed penalty of an equal amount on the appellants. Penalty was also imposed on the Directors and Officials of the appellants company.

(2.) Apart from the contentions on merits, the appellant submits that major portion of the demand which extends for the period July' 94 to Feb' 99 is barred by limitation. In support of the contention, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sheffield Appliances v. CCE, Kolkata, 2003 (87) ECC 620 (T) : 2003 (154) ELT 625 which was rendered in the case of a company belonging to Polar Group. In the above order, referring the proceedings initiated as early as in 1994, we took the view that the Department was aware of marketing pattern of the company and, therefore, the extended period cannot be invoked. The relevant portion of the above order reads as follows:

(3.) We heard Ld. DR also. On going through the contentions raised by the appellant in the present case and our order reported in 2003 (154) ELT 625 (Supra), we are of the view that the same ratio has to be applied in the present case. It has to be noted that the SCN of 1994 referred to the earlier order was issued in the case of the present appellant itself. Taking into consideration the above facts, we hold that the contentions raised by the appellant on the ground of limitation has to be sustained. We are not expressing any view on the contention raised by the appellant on merits of the demand.