TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the premise that whatever duty paid by them would ultimately be available as Modvat/Cenvat credit to the buyer - the demand of duty for the period from 1997-98 to 31-1-99 is not hit by time-bar and that the demand of duty for the prior period is time-barred. The amount of interest on duty u/s 11AB and amount of penalty u/s 11AC require to be re-quantified by the original authority - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/1795/2003 - Final Order No. A/251/2010-WZB/C-II/(EB) - Dated:- 4-8-2010 - Shri P.G. Chacko and S.K. Gaule, JJ. Shri Vishwanath, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K. Lal, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER In this appeal filed by the assessee, the challenge is against demand of duty of Rs. 1,15,238.74 for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. The show-cause notice alleged that the value of the moulds/dies which were supplied free of cost by the buyer for the purpose of manufacture of the subject goods was liable to be included in the assessable value of these goods, which were cleared to M/s. Telco. The notice invoked the extended period of limitation on the alleged ground of suppression of relevant facts by the noticee with intention to evade duty. On the same ground, the notice sought to levy interest on duty under Section 11AB as also to impose a penalty on the noticee under Section 11AC. These proposals were contested by the party. In adjudication of the dispute the original authority amortized the value of moulds and included the same in the assessable value of the subje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... everal cases, this Tribunal took note of the above circumstances and held in favour of the assessee on the question of limitation in cases where differential amounts of duty were demanded from them on the basis of inclusion of cost of moulds/dies in the assessable value of excisable goods for extended periods beyond the normal period of limitation prescribed under Section 11A of the Act. In this context, reference is made to Bright Brothers Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai-III - 2004 (61) RLT 679 (CESTAT-Mum) and Star Glass Works v. CCE, Mumbai - 2003 (162) E.L.T. 367 (Tri-Mumbai). The ld. Counsel has also raised the plea of revenue neutrality against invocation of extended period of limitation. It is submitted that whatever duty is paid by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een 1997 and January 1999. It has also been submitted that the appellant did not disclose the relevant fact in the RT-12 returns filed during the period of dispute, nor did they disclose it to the departmental auditors, who visited the factory for test audit . According to ld. SDR, in these circumstances, the appellant should be held to have suppressed the relevant fact with intent to evade payment of duty and accordingly their plea of limitation should be rejected. 5. We have considered these submissions also. Though we are not impressed with the submissions relating to the test audit , we are not in a position to ignore the submission of the ld. SDR that the appellant continued to exclude the amortized cost of moulds from the assessab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
