9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies received by the appellant were treated as capital goods and Modvat credit on the duty paid on them was availed of. They did not include the cost of the moulds and dies in fixing the value of the components by resorting to the principle of amortisation. The goods, namely, components of the motorcycles manu- factured by them were not valued taking into consideration the amortisation value of the moulds and dies utilised in their manufacture. None of the records maintained by the appellant showed the amortisation value of the moulds and dies, which went into the production of component parts of the motorcycle. So, show cause notices were issued covering the period of five years, namely, from April 1995 to January 2000 demanding differentia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in C.C.E., Aurangabad v. Marathwada Glass Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 1999 (85) ECR 94, Creative Cartons v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - 1999 (106) E.L.T. 79 and Velpack Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, final order in appeal No. E/6222/92-A. In view of the decisions in the above three cases, it is argued that non-payment of duty without including amortisation value of the moulds and dies, cannot be treated as mala fide with intent to evade payment of duty. This argument appears to be quite attractive, but we do not find our way to accept the same for the following reasons. Appellant, while getting moulds and dies from Hero Honda, treated them as capital goods in the manufacture of his product and claimed Modvat cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant was contrary to that legal position. His actions were only with intent to evade payment of duty. We say so because of the fact that the appellant treated the moulds and dies received from Hero Honda as their capital goods and claimed Modvat credit on them. In view of these facts, which are not in controversy, the reliance made by the learned representative on behalf of the appellant on the decision in Cosmic Dye Chemical v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 721 and other cases is ill-conceived. This decision has no application to the facts on hand. Therefore, on the basis of this decision of the Apex Court, the appellant cannot be allowed to attack the action initiated invoking the extended period of limitation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
