S.S.KANG,VICE -PRESIDENT - (1.)HEARD both sides.
(2.)Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order, whereby Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand beyond the normal period of limitation, after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad reported in .
The contention of Revenue is that the respondent had not disclosed to the Revenue in respect of Business Auxiliary Service provided by them. It is from the balance sheet of the respondent, Revenue came to know about the service provided by the respondent. The contention of Revenue is that, the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calicut v. Steel Industries Kerala Ltd. reported in held that the theory of universal knowledge in respect of balance sheet being a public document not attracted to the Department of Revenue in absence of the declaration by the assessee. The Revenue also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Coaltar Chemicals Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India reported in .

(3.)THE contention of respondent is that balance sheet is a public document and in the balance sheet they disclosed its figure, therefore, no intention to evade tax can be alleged against the respondent.