9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal. They are engaged in the manufacture of Motor Vehicle Parts namely `Magneto Assembly' in their factory at Aurangabad. For manufacture of their final product, viz. Magneto Assembly, they purchase some of the inputs, namely, `Pick-up Coil', com bush, charging coil etc. from M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. (for short `M/s. Bajaj') on which appropriate duty is paid by M/s. Bajaj. The appellants had submitted price declarations applicable to Magneto Assembly, which were accepted by the department. 4) The main issue involved in these appeals is the valuation of Magneto Assemblies cleared by the appellants - M/s. Aurangabad EL to M/s. Bajaj and consequent short payment of duty thereon on account of not taking into account the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, show cause notice and the demands raised were barred by limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Act. The co- noticee, more or less on the same lines as the appellants, had objected to the show cause notice and had further submitted that the department has not produced any proof that the co- noticee was anyway connected with the alleged under-valuation of inputs which were cleared by M/s. Bajaj on payment of appropriate duty and it was also contended that the entire notice was based on assumption and presumption and, therefore, it could not be established that the co-noticee was concerned with the exercisable goods which he knew or had reason to believe were liable for confiscation. It was further contended that since there was no under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I division to quantify the interest payable under Section 11AB of the Act and issue appropriate demand notice. 8) The appellants and other co-noticees, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred appeals before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal') under Section 35B of the Act. The Tribunal, by its order dated 20.12.2005 has remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Commissioner for re-computation of excise duty to be levied in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of CCE, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd., 1999 (84) ECR 4 (SC). In so far as the penalties imposed on the appellants, the Tribunal being of the view that the same is excessive, has reduced the penalty from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduct and the landed cost of the material supplied during investigation nor in their reply to the show cause notice. It is also observed that the appellants did not produce any material/data as to actual expenses incurred on account of freight, loading, unloading charges, profit margin etc. The learned senior counsel would submit that the appellants could have supported their defence pleaded in their objections filed to the show cause notice by producing relevant documents including the certificate issued by its chartered accountant but due to unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances, they could not produce the same. It is submitted that this lapse should not be put against the appellants and non-suit them only on this ground. In support o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
