TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evy. Since there are no adverse audit paras on this issue, to my mind Revenue has failed to prove the case of suppression etc. against the respondent. – Held that demand is time barred - E/2363/2003 - A/691/2008-WZB/CII/(SMB)MUM - Dated:- 12-9-2008 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) REPRESENTED BY : Shri Manish Mohan, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri A.P. Kolte, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. BPS (145) 484/2003 dated 16-5-2003. 2. The issue involved in this is regarding the confirmation of demand by the adjudicating authority on free moulds and dies supplied by M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. to the respondent on loan basis for manufacturing different parts of moto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the every free supply. Having not given this information, the adjudicating authority has rightly invoked the provisions of Section 11A(1) and demanding the duty for the relevant period. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent draws my attention to the para 7, 8, 9 10 of the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). It is his submission that during the period Oct, 95 to March, 99 the various audit conducted by the department's officers and checked the stock as well as statutory record but nothing was noticed by the Audit party. It is his submission that the said moulds and dies were duty paid by the main supplier i.e. Bajaj Auto Ltd. It is his submission that the impugned order as passed by the learned Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the course of the audit of the records. 9. With the said position of the facts, findings in the impugned order on suppression of information by the appellants from the department is not sustainable, both in regulating the limitation contained in Section 11A of Central Excise Act in demand for duties for the period beyond the normal limitation contained therein, or for imposition of equivalent penalty in application of the OIO No. 70/2000 date 7-8-2000 is from April, 99 to May, 99 and duty demanded under the same is Rs. 5337/- and penalty Rs. 500/-imposed upon them. The appellants deposited the same under TR-6 Challan No. 3 dated 26-4-2001. The show cause notice was issued on 28-10-99 which is well within the limit of 6 months as provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the fact of supply of moulds/dies on loan basis has not been disclosed to the department. The same has been noticed only after the scrutiny of their private documents. Also despite the knowledge of requirement and availability of dies and M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. have deposed that the cost of the dies was never considered while finalizing the purchase order, the assessee have suppressed the fact and not included the amortized cost of the moulds with an intent to evade the payment of C.Ex. duty." 9. It can be seen from the above reproduced portion of the impugned order that the Revenue has not brought out any specific evidence on record about suppression of facts. The finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) as to the respondent unit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
