2000 (3) TMI 508 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of axle beam assemblies - Inclusion of value of free components.
2. Time-barred demand for central excise duty.

Valuation of Axle Beam Assemblies - Inclusion of Value of Free Components:
The case involved M/s. Allied Industries Ltd. manufacturing 'Axle Beam Assemblies' for M/s. Punjab Tractor Ltd. on a job work basis. The central issue was the exclusion of the value of free components, specifically 'bushes,' supplied by M/s. Punjab Tractor Ltd. when determining the assessable value for central excise duty payment. The initial duty demand was contested, with the Commissioner (Appeals) ruling in favor of M/s. Allied Industries Ltd., stating that the responsibility for differential duty lay with M/s. Punjab Tractor Ltd. due to the supply method under Rule 57F(2). However, the Revenue appealed, arguing that the value of the free components should be included in the assessable value of the axle beam assemblies, as per legal precedents.

The Appellate Tribunal referred to a previous case involving a similar issue and held that the value of the free components, in this case, the bushes, should indeed be included in the value of the axle beam assemblies. The Tribunal emphasized that this inclusion was essential for accurate valuation and duty payment. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was accepted based on the legal position established by the Tribunal regarding the inclusion of the value of components in the assessable value.

Time-Barred Demand for Central Excise Duty:
The respondents contended that the demand for central excise duty was mostly time-barred as there was no evidence of fraud or intention to evade payment. They argued that M/s. Punjab Tractor Ltd. was eligible for Modvat credit, indicating no intent to evade duty payment. The Tribunal, in line with a previous ruling, emphasized that for invoking the extended period of five years under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, there must be evidence of intentional evasion. As the situation mirrored a previous case, the Tribunal concluded that the extended period was not applicable, limiting the demand for differential duty to a period of six months. The case was remanded to compute the correct duty amount for that period, with the respondents instructed to pay the determined differential duty amount.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the inclusion of the value of free components in the assessable value of axle beam assemblies while limiting the demand for central excise duty to a specific period due to the absence of intent to evade payment, as per the provisions of the Central Excise Act.