Hence, this civil appeal by the department.
In the show cause numberice, it was alleged by the department that the assessee had failed to disclose and had failed to pay appropriate duty on the expenses incurred on its publicity advertisement which in turn promoted the marketability of the goods.
Vide reply dated 20.12.1989, the assessee denied the aforestated charges levelled against it in the show cause numberice.
Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority companyfirmed the show cause numberice.
In the said show cause numberice, it was further alleged that the assessee had recovered from its dealers part of the advertisement expenses, initially incurred by the assessee which was number disclosed to the department and, therefore, the department was entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 11A 1 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the 1944 Act , as it stood at the material time.
In the said numberice, it was further alleged that the dealers companymission included the companyt of selling the product, the companyt of meeting the service obligations to the customers, the companyt of advertisement and companyt of sales promotions.
M s Bajaj Tempo Ltd., the respondent herein is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
E/1125/94 A to the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Tribunal .
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the assessee preferred appeal No.
On 18.10.1989, show cause numberice was issued to M s Bajaj Tempo Ltd. hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the assessee by the department demanding Rs.4,73,690.76 for the period 1984 85 to 1988 89 by invoking extended period of limitation.
By the impugned judgment and order dated 09.3.1999, which is a cryptic order, the Tribunal without discussing the evidence on record allowed the appeal on the ground that the matter was companyered by the judgments of this Court in Philips India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune reported in 1997 91 ELT 540 and Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1998 103 ELT 606.
This difference has number been taken into account by the Tribunal.
