TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose of payment of central excise duty, the value of the bushes received free of charge was excluded. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 1-12-95 was issued demanding duty of about Rs. 1.7 lakhs in respect of clearances of axle beam assemblies for the period November 1990 to August 1995. The Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh confirmed this duty demand in adjudication. In appeal, the duty demand was set aside by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on the ground that the bushes had been received under Rule 57F(2) procedure from M/s. Punjab Tractor Ltd. and that the departmental authorities were in the knowledge of this fact. The Commissioner also held that the responsibility for discharging the differential duty was not on M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the final order Nos. 1627 1628/99-A dated 7-12-99 passed by the CEGAT in an identical case. 4. In the present case, it is admitted position that the bushes constituted part of the axle beam assemblies. This Tribunal considered the identical issue in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. M/s. R.H. Industries in final order Nos. 1627 1628/99-A dated 7-12-99 on the question of including the cost of bushes in the assessable value. The Tribunal held as under :- 3. R.H. Industries were manufacturing Axle Beam Assembly which is a component part of Tractors manufactured by Punjab Tractors Ltd. Axle Beam Bushes which were part of Assembly, were supplied to the appellant by Punjab Tractors Ltd., free of cost. While carrying out the manufacturing p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the show cause notice covering the period from November 1990 to July 1995 cannot be sustained. The contention is that for invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Department should not only show that there was short levy on account of fraud, collusion, mis-statement or suppression it must also be shown that said fraud, collusion, mis-statement or suppression must have been made with intent to evade payment of duty. In the instant case even if it is shown that there was a short payment of duty. In the absence of wilful mis-statement with intent to evade payment of duty the Department cannot, it is argued, invoke the proviso to Section 11A. In support of this argument Ld. Counsel submits that even if the price o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assembly. Duty should have been paid accordingly. In such a situation the Punjab Tractors could have claimed Modvat credit, the result would have been Revenue neutral. There could not have been any loss 'to the Revenue. When the value of the bushes were not included in the value of Axle Beam Assembly, there could not have been any intention on the part of R.H. Industries to evade payment of duty. Consequently, Department was clearly in error in invoking the extended period fixed by the proviso to Section 11A. 7. The situation of the present case is identical to that of R.H. Industries. Therefore, extended period was not liable to be invoked for the demand of differential duty. The demand could have been raised only for a period of six mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
