9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (10) TMI 261 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Inclusion of cost of bushes in the assessable value of axle beam assembly for Central Excise duty determination. 2. Application of extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Issue 1: Inclusion of cost of bushes in the assessable value: The appellants were involved in manufacturing axle beam assembly on a job work basis and supplied them to a company after fitting free-of-cost bushes supplied by that company. The Department contended that the cost of bushes should be included in the assessable value for Central Excise duty determination. A demand notice was issued alleging a short payment of duty due to non-inclusion of the cost of bushes. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty, which was later set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal was approached against the Commissioner (Appeals) order. Issue 2: Application of extended period of limitation: The Department invoked the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, alleging that the appellants had willfully suppressed facts regarding the fitting of bushes to evade duty payment. The lower appellate authority ruled in favor of the assessee on the limitation issue, stating that as the appellants were filing returns to the Department, the movement of bushes was known to the Department, and thus, the extended limitation period was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not challenge this finding or successfully rebut the contention that the ground of appeal was beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, finding no merit in the argument regarding the limitation issue. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the demand of duty was not sustainable due to the absence of valid reasons to interfere with the lower appellate authority's ruling on the limitation issue.
|
