TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vade payment of duty and each case has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of that case. In the present case, we note that some time in 2001 the respondent realized their mistake and they did take remedial measures and they themselves approached Godrej Appliances Ltd. and got details such as certificate from the Chartered Accountant etc. and thereafter computed the differential duty. The respondent B. Tej Enterprises paid the duty suo motu without any enquiries or any objection from the department. This conduct of the respondent clearly indicates that there was no intention leave alone wilful intention to evade payment of duty. Under the circumstances, in our considered view, this is not a case of imposition of penalty under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise duty on the parts so manufactured and cleared and Godrej Appliances Ltd. was availing the credit of the duty paid by B. Tej Enterprises. For manufacture of such plastic parts, certain moulds were required. These moulds were provided/supplied by Godrej Appliances Ltd. to B. Tej Enterprises and B. Tej Enterprises was not doing any modification in the moulds and after use, was also returning to appellant 3 viz. Godrej Appliances Ltd. as and when directed by them. The issue involved is inclusion of amortization cost of such moulds in the assessable value of the plastic moulded components manufactured by B. Tej Enterprises. The said issue has already been decided by this Tribunal in the case of Flex Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut reported i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est under Section 11AB, penalty under Section 11AC and also appropriating the amount already paid. The original authority confirmed the allegations in the show cause notice and, therefore, confirmed the interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order of the original authority, the respondents filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the respondents relating to interest under Section 11AB, penalty under Section 11AC and also penalty under Rule 209A on individual, Shri Vinod Jain, partner, as also on Godrej Appliances Ltd. The Revenue is in appeal against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to interest and penalties. The respondents are not disputing the duty amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 (T); (ii) Flex Laminators Flex Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut reported in 2004 (163) ELT 297 (SC); (iii) Mutual Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2000 (117) ELT 578 (T); (iv) Bharat Automotive Pressings (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune reported in 2010 (262) ELT 720 (T); (v) Automotive Stampings and Assemblies Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-I reported in 2015-TIOL-836-CESTAT-MUM. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that his client is a small manufacturer and manufacturing certain parts on behalf of Godrej Appliances Ltd. He submitted that before 2000 under the erstwhile Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and the corresponding Central Excise Valuation Rules, there was no specific mention about the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and thereafter the department issued the said show cause notice. It was also submitted that it would be seen that the show cause notice was issued on 13.3.2003 i.e. after almost one year of making the payment. Further, the five-year period from the date of issuance of show cause notice goes back only upto 1.3.1998 and his client has paid the differential duty even for the period 1.4.1996 to 13.3.1998. Thus his client has paid the differential duty which was even beyond the period of five years prescribed under the law. He further submitted that in the first show cause notice, out of an amount involved of ₹ 4,90,122/-, ₹ 4,59,620/- is pertaining to these two years which was not even legally payable. However, the respondent being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the necessary input. He submitted that in view of the said position, no penalty is imposable on them. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. At the outset, we observe that there is no dispute about the duty liability. The dispute is only relating to imposition of penalty under Section 11AC, interest under old Section 11AB and penalty under other rules such as Rule 209A etc. As described in the brief of the case, we observe that the period involved in the present case is from 1996 to 2000 and under the old Central Excise Valuation Rules there was no specific mention of adding the proportionate cost of moulds. It is true that this Tribunal vide the order in the case of Flex Industries Ltd. (supra) has held that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
