2011 (1) TMI 997 - AT - Central Excise

Cost of moulds and dies used in the manufacturing of the impugned parts - whether not amortized in the assessable value of the parts on their clearances - invoking extended period of limitation alleging suppression - Held that - It is well settled law that the cost of moulds and dies are to be amortized in the assessable value of the goods cleared by the respondents. As the challans and invoices on which M/s.Bajaj Auto Ltd. had supplied the moulds and dies to the respondents in free of cost on loan basis was on record during the course of audit before the audit party & when the audit party has not taken any objection for non-inclusion of the amortized cost of moulds and dies in the assessable value by the respondents allegation of suppression does not survive as held by the lower appellate authority - It is the duty of the audit party to audit the records and to point out the discrepancies found out during the course of audit - Decided in favor of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against dropping demands due to extended period of limitation
- Allegation of not amortizing cost of moulds and dies in assessable value
- Invocation of extended period of limitation
- Relevance of audit findings in determining suppression

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the lower appellate authority's decision to drop demands, citing that the extended period of limitation was not applicable in the case. The respondents were job workers supplying scooter parts to a company and were accused of not including the cost of moulds and dies in the assessable value of the parts. The show-cause notice issued was based on alleged suppression. The lower appellate authority dropped the demands, prompting the Revenue's appeal.

2. The Revenue argued that the extended period of limitation was applicable as the respondents did not declare the amortized cost of moulds and dies to the department. They referenced case laws to support their contention. Despite notice, the respondents did not appear, but some requested a decision on merits. The Tribunal accepted this request and examined the case.

3. The Tribunal found that the respondents had no case on merits as the cost of moulds and dies should have been included in the assessable value. The main issue was whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked based on the audit conducted by the department. The respondents claimed that the audit party never objected to the non-inclusion of costs during their frequent visits. The audit report and documents scrutinized during the audit did not raise any concerns about the amortized costs. The Tribunal concluded that the case laws cited by the Revenue were not relevant as they involved different circumstances where no audit was conducted when suppression was alleged. The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, stating that there was no reason to interfere.

4. In summary, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the lower appellate authority's decision to drop the demands. The case highlighted the importance of including the cost of moulds and dies in the assessable value and the significance of audit findings in determining suppression for invoking the extended period of limitation.