9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubsequent to Aug. 96 set aside, however penalty under Rule 173 and Rule 226 upheld. - E/56/2004 - 570/2010 - Dated:- 19-5-2010 - Ms. Jyoti Balasundarath, Vice-President and Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY: Shri M. Saravanan, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri C. Dhanaseka ran, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. - The assessee-appellants herein manufactured housing containers and freight containers on job work basis for their principal M/s. Balmer Lawrie and Co. Cochin, who supplied raw materials free of cost to the appellants under dealers invoice and the appellant in turn took MODVAT credit on the raw materials and manufactured the above mentioned goods and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iding the services were in the nature of overheads essential for manufacturing activity and therefore were required to be reckoned while the assessable value of the finished goods was calculated for the purpose of payment of duty. Since the service charges had not been included in the assessable value of housing containers and freight containers, a show-cause notice dated 13.10.1998 was issued proposing recovery of duty of Rs.2,55,000/- short-paid during the period 1995 - 96, 1996 - 97 and 1997 - 98 upto November 1997, invoking the extended period of limitation and also proposing recovery of interest and imposition of penalty. The notice was adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner confirming the demand raised, together with interest, and imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore the expenses incurred for providing such services were in the nature of overheads essential for manufacturing activity. We, therefore, uphold the duty demand. We also find no merit in the assessee's contention that the entire demand is barred by limitation for the reason that they have not been able to establish any basis for the belief that such charges were not includible in the assessable value, let alone a bona fide belief. Intention to evade payment of duty is clearly brought out for the reason that the receipt of service charges from their principal was not disclosed to the Department. However, we find force in the submission that the demand for the period subsequent to August 1996 is not sustainable as suppression cannot co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
