TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t - the department contended that royalty to be paid on the total value of the goods cleared from the factory – the appellant directed to deposit an amount of Rs.20 lakhs as pre-deposit – upon such submission duty and penalty to be stayed till the disposal – Partial stay granted. - E/57358/2013-EX(DB), E/57359/2013-EX(DB) - STAY ORDER NO. 59310-59311/2013 - Dated:- 9-9-2013 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Manmohan Singh, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri B.L. Narshimhan, Advocate For the Respondent: Ms. S. Bector, DR ORDER PER: Manmohan Singh M/s Avtec Limited, Pithampur, District-Dhar, M.P. has filed the present stay application against the Order-in-Original No. 37-38/Commr/2012 dated 08.02.2013 passed by the Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per their agreement with Ford, USA, FIPL pays a royalty of 5% on their net revenue to M/s Ford Global Technologies. However, the agreement between FIPL and the applicant is silent about the royalty clause. (d) The applicant did not add money value of Royalty element in the cost of FOC component so as to avoid payment of duty on this element. (e) FIPL and the applicant have deliberately tried to avoid including the money value of royalty element in the cost of FOC component so as to avoid payment of duty on this element. (f) The applicant has cleared Engine and Transmission valued at Rs. 634,30,70,357/- during the period from April 2005 to December 2009 and Rs. 19,62,11,522/- during the period from January 2010 to March 2010. Royalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not Rs.4,80,85,580/- as quantified in the show cause notice and confirmed in the impugned Order. 8. As per the provisions of Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Shoe Cause Notice is required to be issued within 1 year of the relevant date. The demand of Rs.4,72,02,644/- for the period from April 2005 to December 2009 was raised by Show Cause Notice dated 07.05.2010 by invoking extended period of limitation. Thus the demand of Rs.4,37,23,353.62/- upto March 2009 is barred by limitation. 9. We have heard the submissions made by the appellants as well as by the Revenue and have perused the records. It is seen that the appellants have made a strong case for waiver of pre-deposit. Similarly the department has come forward wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
