TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1994. Show cause notice was issued to them on 3-2-1995. Demand has been confirmed on the ground that the value of the Copper Inserts supplied free of cost by their customers, M/s. Chloride Industries Ltd. and utilised by the appellants in the manufacture of their final product which was sent back by them to M/s. Chloride Industries was to be included in the assessable value of their final product. Shri Bagaria, learned Advocate fairly admits that on merits the appellants do not have any case, but assails the Order on the ground of limitation. Drawing our attention to the various letters written by the appellants to the Department, he submits that the Department was intimated about the receipt of the Copper Inserts from Chloride Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon ble Supreme Court as also of the Tribunal to impress upon the plea of limitation. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal. 3. Shri R.K. Roy, learned J.D.R. for the Revenue opposes the prayer and submits that the Commissioner has discussed the point on limitation as also availability of Rule 57F(2) procedure to the appellants. He also submits that the entire correspondence made by the appellants with the Department does not clearly bring out the fact that the value of Copper Inserts being supplied by M/s. Chloride Industries were not being added to the assessable value of the final product. At the most, these letters only bring it to the knowledge of the Department that the Copper Inserts were being supplied by M/s. Chloride In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Commissioner of Central Excise concerned reads as follows :- 1) We are getting various copper inserts from M/s. Chloride India Limited and use the same in the components to be made as per their specifications and return the same duly used in the components and we are not getting any extra cost for using the inserts, and this is not a job work. It was also clarified in the said letter that the appellants are not availing any Modvat credit on these Copper Inserts. The said letter was written by the appellants in response to the letter of the Assistant Commissioner seeking certain particulars and clarifications as regards the use of Copper Inserts. We, further, find that in the declaration filed under the provisions of Rule 57G v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Tribunal observed that the appellants were under the bona fide belief that the cost of free-supplied materials was not to be added in the value and there was no deliberate suppression with intention to evade payment of duty so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. Similarly, in the case of Newton Engineering Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 468, cost of free-supplied material provided by the customers was not included in the assessable value. In view of the controversy on the point in the past, benefit of doubt was extended to the assessee and longer period of limitation was held as not invocable. 7. In the instant case, we find that the various letters written by the appellants to the Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
