TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplied by the final product manufacture, since it had not taken credit for Modvat in respect of inputs - the issue is debatable and the applicants have paid the duty demand along with interest for the normal period of limitation and the same is sufficient for compliance of the provisions of Section 35F. - E/531-533/2011 - S/196-198/2012/EB/C-II - Dated:- 1-2-2012 - Ashok Jindal, P R Chandrasekharan, JJ. For Appellant: Shri Prakash Shah, Adv. For Respondent: Shri Navneet, Addl. Commr. (AR) Per: Ashok Jindal: The applicants are seeking waiver of pre-deposit of the demands confirmed against them through the impugned orders as detailed below:- Appellant Period of Dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the demands have been confirmed against the applicants by invoking the extended period of limitation. He further submitted that the demands confirmed for the normal period of limitation, the applicants have paid the demand of duty alongwith interest i.e. ₹ 11,24,630/-. He further prayed that as the issue involved is that whether the cost of drawings and designs supplied by the principal manufacturer, who had cleared the final products after including the said cost of designs and drawings in the final product and discharged duty liability on the same is includable in the assessable value by the applicants or not? He contended that in the case of International Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bihar reported in 2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing charges and it was to be includable by the applicants that cannot be disputed and there is no question of any revenue neutrality. To support this contention, he placed reliance on the following decision: - (a) CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Dharampal Prem Chand Ltd. - 2011 (265) ELT 81 (Tri-Del) (b) CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Baba Asia Ltd. - 2011 (267) ELT 115 (Tri-Del) (c) Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut-I - 2011 (273) ELT 89 (Tri-Del) 6. Heard both sides. 7. We find that in this case admittedly, the applicants have not included cost of designs and drawings charges in the assessable value, which was supplied free of cost by the principal manufacturer, who discharged duty liability on the final products. In the case of Oris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
