9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f limitation is not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are the job workers of M/s.Bajaj Auto Ltd., and supplying various parts of scooters on job work basis. To manufacture these parts, M/s.Bajaj Auto Ltd., have given moulds and dies as per the specifications of the parts to the respondents on loan free basis (without any charge). The allegation against the respondents is that the cost of moulds and dies used in the manufacturing of the impugned parts was not amortized in the assessable value of the parts on their clearances to M/s.Bajaj Auto Ltd. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued, the same was adjudicated, duty demands were confirmed along with interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing case laws:- i) Madras Peto-Chem Ltd., Vs. CCE, Madras, reported in 1999 (108) ELT 611 (SC). ii) Century Tiles Ltd., Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad, reported in 2009 (236) ELT 583 (Tri.-Ahmed) iii) Agrico Engineering Works (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CCE, Meerut, reported in 2000 (122) ELT 891 (Tribunal) 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite notice. From perusal of records, we find that some of the respondents have requested to decide the issue on merits. As per the available records and in the interest of justice, the request of the respondents is accepted, the matter has been looked into the merits. 5. After hearing the Ld. DR, we found that on merits, the respondents do not have any case, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id not take any objection that the respondents have not amortized the cost of moulds and dies in the assessable value of the parts cleared to M/s.Bajaj Auto Ltd. It is also on record that the statements of the respondents have been recorded in January 1999 and a show-cause notice has been issued in November 2000. In that event, when the audit party has not taken any objection for non-inclusion of the amortized cost of moulds and dies in the assessable value by the respondents, allegation of suppression does not survive as held by the lower appellate authority. The case laws cited by the Ld. DR are not relevant to the facts of the case as in those cases no audit took place when the suppression was alleged. It is the duty of the audit party t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
