TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be discharged by GSCL. We find no reasons to add the value of such lugs in the value of the clutch covers manufactured by the appellant, especially when such job has been done by the appellant in terms of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Time limitation - Held that: - The movements of the driving lugs were under the cover of challan and in terms of Rule 4. As such, it can not be said that the appellants had any mala fide or any suppression/mis-statement with intent to evade payment of duty - All periodical returns were being filed by them, the driving lugs were being brought to the factory under the cover of challan and final product was also being covered under the cover of same challan - the demand is barred by limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th driving lugs. Accordingly, the demand of duty of Rs. 1,60,284/- was raised against the appellant for the period March 2002 to June 2002 by raising a show cause notice on 17-2-04, by invoking longer period of limitation. The said demand stand confirmed by the authorities below along with imposition of penalty and confirmation of interest. 3. We have heard both sides duly represented by Shri J.C. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and by Shri R.S. Srova, learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. 4. It stand explained before us that appellant is primarily a manufacturer of clutch covers which are being cleared by them without welding lugs to the same. Their buyer GSCL, who are engaged in the manufacture o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of M/s. International Auto Ltd. v. CCE, Bihar - 2005 (183) E.L.T. 239 (S.C.), wherein taking note of the provisions of Rule 57F of the erstwhile CER, 1994, value of the input supplied by the manufacturer of the final product to intermediate product producer, was held as not includible in the value of the final product. 6. Apart from the above, we also find that the demand is barred by limitation. The movements of the driving lugs were under the cover of challan and in terms of Rule 4. As such, it can not be said that the appellants had any mala fide or any suppression/mis-statement with intent to evade payment of duty, and the same cannot be attributed to them. All periodical returns were being filed by them, the driving lugs were bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
