2024 (10) TMI 977 - AT - Central Excise

Calculation of duty on amortization cost of dies - non inclusion of amortization cost of dies used for manufacture of cylinder head and Break Shoe - suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation - H ELD THAT - The entire demand was raised in the show cause notice on the basis of two invoices, the copy of which has also been produced on record; both invoices bearing nos. 20650 dated 31.03.2009 of M/s Sunbeam Auto Ltd. and Invoice No. 11434 dated 02.11.2009 of M/s M M Machines Craft Pvt. Ltd; and the perusal of both the invoices shows that the appellant got the die of cylinder heads only and not the die of brake shoe as alleged by the Department. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The appellant was subjected to regular audit in the year 2010 also and no such objection was ever raised by the Revenue. It is also found that the Revenue has not been able to bring on record any fact which shows that the appellant has suppressed the material facts to justify the invocation of extended period to confirm the demand. It is also found that the appellant has conceded the demand for the normal period on account of cylinder heads only which he is liable to pay. The appellant is liable to pay the duty on account of cylinder heads only and that to for the normal period for the year 2009-10 only and the demand of duty on brake shoe by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable and therefore, the same is set aside and the duty liability for the normal period along with interest is confirmed and for quantification of the same, the case is remanded back to the Original Authority to determine the same. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of Order-In-Original
- Calculation of duty on amortization cost of dies
- Allegations of short levy and non-inclusion of amortization cost
- Show cause notice and subsequent appeal
- Appellant's submissions and concessions
- Department's findings and objections
- Extended period of limitation and suppression of facts
- Tribunal's decision on duty liability and remand to Original Authority

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to an appeal against the rejection of an Order-In-Original by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi. The case involves the calculation of duty on the amortization cost of dies received by the appellant from specific suppliers for the manufacture of cylinder heads and brake shoes. The audit raised objections regarding short levy and non-inclusion of amortization costs for the period 2007-08 to 2009-10. The appellant paid a certain amount in response to the objections raised during the audit.

The Assistant Commissioner issued a show cause notice in 2012 based on the audit findings, leading to the confirmation of the demand, imposition of interest, and penalty. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was rejected, resulting in the present appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the demand was calculated incorrectly, as the invoices showed that the appellant received dies for manufacturing cylinder heads only, not for brake shoes. The appellant conceded a duty liability for cylinder heads for a specific period but contested the demand for the period 2007-08 and 2008-09, citing it as time-barred due to a previous detailed audit conducted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and examined the invoices provided as evidence. It found that the demand was based on incorrect calculations, as the appellant had received dies only for cylinder heads, not brake shoes. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue had not proven any suppression of facts by the appellant to justify invoking the extended period for confirming the demand.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand for brake shoes, confirming the duty liability only for cylinder heads for the normal period of 2009-10. The case was remanded back to the Original Authority for quantification of the duty liability. The Tribunal directed the Original Authority to determine the same within two months and instructed a refund if the appellant had made an excess deposit.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, with the Tribunal clarifying the duty liability for the appellant and providing directions for further proceedings by the Original Authority.