9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chacko, Member (J)]. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Axle Beam Assembly (Chapter Heading No. 87.08 of the Central Excise Tariff Act) on job work basis. During the period February, 1991 to July, 1995, they supplied axle beam assembly to M/s. Punjab Tractor Limited (PTL) after fitting therein the bushes supplied free of cost by M/s. PTL. The cost of bushes was not included in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PTL under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules for job work, with intent to evade payment of duty leviable on axle beam assembly. The party contested the show-cause notice. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, who adjudicated the dispute, confirmed the above demand of duty and imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,25,000/- under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 173Q of the Rules. This order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cleared by the appellants to M/s. PTL during the period of dispute, the said issue does not survive for consideration. We are seized of the limited question whether the demand of duty was hit by limitation or not. We note that the lower appellate authority held the issue of time bar in favour of the assessees on the grounds that, as the appellants were filing RT-12 returns to the Department, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tting the assessable value of axle beam assemblies approved from the department. However, they have not filed copies of these price lists to substantiate their claim that the fact of non-inclusion of the cost of bushes was in the knowledge of the department. After 1-4-1994, there was no mention on the invoice of the party that the assessable value did not include the cost of the bushes. So there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, the Tribunal s decision reported in 2000 (88) ECR 825 = 1999 (35) RLT 58 cited by ld. DR would not advance the Revenue s case on the point of limitation. Therefore, we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned order. We accordingly reject the Revenue s appeal as without merit on the point of limitation. (The operative part of the order has already been pronounced in the ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
