9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant imported various capital goods such as dies, moulds etc. during 1994-1995 on payment of concessional customs duty and nil countervailing duty (CVD) under Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme. The appellant gave these capital goods on free-of-cost basis to their vendors. At the time of supply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essable value of the components, which had been manufactured using the impuged capital goods. When the above discrepancy was pointed out by the Department, these vendors made deposit of duty involved on the differential value of capital goods. After deposit of the differential duty, these vendors issued supplementary invoices in favour of the appellant. The appellant took cenvat credit of Rs. 35,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as they never amortized the additional cost of capital goods. He informed that the Department initiated the investigation against the five vendors namely M/s Bright Brothers, M/s Sun Vaccum Formers, M/s Supreme Industries, M/s Mark Auto Industries and M/s Ranee Industries. The Ld. Advocate further submits that the proceedings against the vendors have revealed no suppression. In this regard, he d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; The Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the Order-In-Appeal. 5. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the demand and penalty on the premise that these was suppression on the part of vendors as they never amortized the additional cost of capital goods on their own. However, in the judgments cited above, it has come out clearly that there was no mala fide intention on the part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of the above, the element of suppression of fact by the vendors is not established and the supplementary invoices issued by them cannot be said to be tainted with the element of suppression in Section 11AC. In view of this, the conclusion drawn by the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was suppression on the part of the vendors is not correct. 7. In view of the above, the order of the Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
