Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 701 - AT - Central ExciseInvocation of extended period of limitation - Suppression of facts - Malafide intention - whether extended period of time could have been invoked to confirm the demand in the instant case where the respondent-assessee had not included the cost of dies in the value of the motor vehicle parts manufactured and supplied by them to M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited - Held that:- From the statements of the concerned officials of M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd., who got the vehicle parts manufactured through the respondent-asssessee, it is seen that the respondent were receiving dies/moulds on loan/returnable basis from M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited for manufacture of different motor vehicle parts. The amortised cost of these dies was not considered while finalizing purchase orders and determining the terms and conditions of supply. This it is evident from the statement of Shri S.R. Malpani, and Shri S.G. Naniwadekar, Thus, it is clear that the respondent-assessee knew that the cost of the dies had not been included in the value of the motor vehicle parts mentioned in the purchase orders. Yet they never took any action to ascertain in these costs and include the same in the assessable value of motor vehicle parts manufactured and cleared by them to M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. As per the provisions of Rule 173F of the Central Excise Central Excise Rules, 1944, it was the responsibility of the assessee to ascertain the correct value of the goods and discharge duty on such value. There is also no evidence available on record to show that the assessee disclosed to the department the non-inclusion of the amortised cost of moulds/dies in the value of the motor vehicle parts manufactured and supplied by them. In these circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the respondent-assessee suppressed the information in spite of knowledge that the amortised cost of moulds/dies did not form part of the value of the motor vehicle parts manufactured and supplied by them. It is in this context, the decisions of the hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Neminath Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (2010 (4) TMI 631 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) and Salasar Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) Ltd. (2013 (8) TMI 151 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) become relevant. - Decided in favour of Revenue.
|