9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Axle Beam Assembly (Chapter Heading No. 87.08 of the Central Excise Tariff Act) on job work basis. During the period February, 1991 to July, 1995, they supplied axle beam assembly to M/s. Punjab Tractor Limited (PTL) after fitting therein the bushes supplied free of cost by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act regarding fitment of bushes supplied by M/s. PTL under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules for job work, with intent to evade payment of duty leviable on axle beam assembly. The party contested the show-cause notice. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, who adjudicated the dispute, confirmed the above demand of duty and imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,25,000/- under Section 11AC of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessable value of axle beam assembly manufactured and cleared by the appellants to M/s. PTL during the period of dispute, the said issue does not survive for consideration. We are seized of the limited question whether the demand of duty was hit by limitation or not. We note that the lower appellate authority held the issue of time bar in favour of the assessees on the grounds that, as the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt or not. Prior to 1-4-1994 the party must have been getting the assessable value of axle beam assemblies approved from the department. However, they have not filed copies of these price lists to substantiate their claim that the fact of non-inclusion of the cost of bushes was in the knowledge of the department. After 1-4-1994, there was no mention on the invoice of the party that the assessable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the scope of the show-cause notice. In the circumstances, the Tribunal's decision reported in 2000 (88) ECR 825 = 1999 (35) RLT 58 cited by ld. DR would not advance the Revenue's case on the point of limitation. Therefore, we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned order. We accordingly reject the Revenue's appeal as without merit on the point of limitation. (The operative pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
