2013 (9) TMI 1038 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Dispute regarding adding the value of moulds and dies supplied by customers to the assessable value of final products on amortization basis; Time bar issue regarding demand of duty for the period June, 1995 to March, 2000.

Summary:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing sheet metal components, faced a demand of &8377;1,18,08,897 for adding the value of moulds and dies supplied by customers to their final products. The appellant contested the demand for the period 1.6.1995 to June 30.6.1998, arguing conflicting Tribunal decisions and the letter submitted to jurisdictional officers regarding adding amortization cost.

2. The appellant's advocate acknowledged the issue was decided by a larger bench previously and argued against the time bar, citing conflicting Tribunal decisions during the relevant period. The appellant had disclosed the arrangement of free supply of moulds and dies in price lists approved by the department.

3. The advocate highlighted that the Revenue was aware of the free supply of moulds and dies as declared in the price lists, and the appellant had informed the department about their decision to add amortization cost. The advocate contended that the Revenue was unjustified in alleging suppression for invoking a longer period of limitation.

4. The Revenue countered, stating that the appellant's letter regarding amortization cost was sent after investigations began in June 1998. Reference was made to a Tribunal decision indicating no conflict of decisions prior to the larger bench's ruling.

5. The Tribunal found the issue on merits settled against the appellant by the larger bench. The only matter to decide was whether the demand raised in the show cause notice dated 29.6.2000 was time-barred, considering the appellant's payment of duty for the period July 1998 to March 2000.

6. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue was aware of the free supply of moulds and dies by customers and that the appellant's letter dated 31.12.1998 was undisputed. Given conflicting judgments and the larger bench's subsequent decision, the benefit of extended period was granted to the appellant.

7. The Tribunal concluded that there was no malafide intent on the appellant's part to evade duty payment, extending the benefit of limitation and setting aside the demand for the period June 1995 to June 1998, along with interest and penalties.

8. All three appeals were disposed of accordingly.