2004 (8) TMI 267 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation (Central Excise) - Demand of duty - Limitation - Cost of tooling/moulding are required to be add in finished products - HELD THAT - In the case of Paradise Plastic Enterprises Ltd. 2003 (12) TMI 426 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI on an identical issue pertaining to the includability of cost of moulds in the assessable value the Tribunal noted that there was no suppression of facts and an intention to evade the payment of duty and on that ground held that the demands were time barred. In view of the above rulings, which have been applied in the case of Creative Micro Systems 2004 (7) TMI 607 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , we are of the considered opinion that in the present case it cannot be held that there was suppression of any material for the purpose of evading duty. In view of the conflicting judgments on the issue, the appellants are entitled to seek the benefit of time bar. Therefore, while upholding the matter on merits in the Revenue's favour, we have to hold that the demands are barred by time and not liable to recovery. The appeal is disposed off in the above terms.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The correctness of not adding tooling/moulding charges in the value of products.

Summary:
The Revenue challenged the Order-in-Appeal stating that the tooling/moulding charges should be added in the value of products. The issue was decided against the assessee based on a Larger Bench judgment. The assessee argued that conflicting decisions existed during the relevant period, and they believed in good faith that the charges should not be added. They cited precedents and the Modvat scheme to support their case. The Revenue contended that the assessee should have included the charges in the assessable value. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered against the assessee by the Larger Bench judgment. The assessee was required to include the charges in the commercial invoice. The Tribunal considered previous judgments and the Apex Court's ruling in similar cases. It was concluded that there was no suppression of facts to evade duty, and conflicting judgments supported the assessee's position. Therefore, the demands were held to be time-barred and not recoverable. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.