2007 (10) TMI 156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nts are engaged in the manufacture of unmachined iron castings. Three units of theirs are involved in this case, which are referred to as Units I, II and III. Unit I is the 'Casting Unit' (foundry) and the other two units are the 'Component Units' manufacturing automobile components out of the castings received from Unit I. During the period, April to August 1996, Unit I had cleared a certain quan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - for the above period as also to impose penalties on the party under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. These proposals were contested on merits as well as on limitation. In adjudication of the dispute, the original authority confirmed the above demand of duty against the assessee and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Rule 173Q. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... manent mould foundry and sand mould foundry respectively. This accounts for the differential duty which was rightly demanded. 3. The surviving challenge is on limitation. It is the case of the appellants that what they had made was just an arithmetical mistake in calculating raw material cost for the purpose of determining the cost of production in terms of Rule 6(b)(ii) and that there was no int .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion raised in the show-cause notice is not tenable inasmuch as the assessee had filed declaration effective from 1-4-1996 under Rule 173C and had also filed RT42 returns from time to time during the period of dispute. It is also obvious that they invoked the correct provision of law for determining the assessable value of the goods. It appears they made arithmetical mistake in their calculation, f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f revenue neutrality. In the present case also, it is not in dispute that any duty paid by the appellant-unit would be available as Modvat credit to the other units. In the circumstances, we accept the appellants' plea that the extended period of limitation was not to be invoked in this case. 5. In the result, the demand of duty is set aside and the appeal is allowed (Dictated and pronounced in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X