9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto by the appellants with TELCO in December 1998, the appellants had received an amount of Rs. 639.14 lakhs from TELCO for design and development of tools required for the manufacture of motor vehicle parts (MV parts, for short) to be supplied to them. The appellants developed tools within their factory and used the same for the manufacture of MV parts ordered by TELCO. They had not paid duty of excise on the tool design/development charges. 2. Later on, sometime in June 1999, officers of Central Excise visited their factory and collected documentary and oral evidences of duty having not been paid on the above charges on the tools captively developed and used by the appellants. The appellants paid Rs. 65 lakhs towards duty on the said ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which, being capital goods developed and captively used within the factory of production of final products (MV parts), were wholly exempt from duty of excise under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. (as amended); that the amount of Rs. 65 lakhs collected by the department on the value addition made to MV parts on account of costing of the tools was liable to be refunded to the appellants, who had already paid duty of excise on the amortized value of tools in respect of the clearances of MV parts made to TELCO; that none of the lower authorities had examined this ground of refund application in the correct perspective; that even the plea of violation of natural justice raised before the lower appellate authority had been ignored; and that the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... designing and developing charges for tools was includible in the assessable value of the MV components cleared to the latter. The appellants have contended that it is only the amortized value of the tools that should have been included in the assessable value of MV components supplied to TELCO. It has also been stated by them that they have already included the amortized value in the assessable value of such MV components for the entire period of dispute. This fact was clearly pleaded by the appellants before the first appellate authority but that authority has not examined it. The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the view that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 67/95, dated 16-3-1995 (as amended) as the des ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not been contested. 6. Having regard to the undisputed fact that the original authority rejected the refund claim in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as also to the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) denied natural justice to the party to the extent of raising an additional ground for rejecting the refund claim without notice to them, we are unable to sustain their proceedings. We would remand the case to the original authority for de novo adjudication of the refund claim. Accordingly, the orders of both the lower authorities are set aside and this appeal is allowed by way of remand. The original authority is directed to frame the issue correctly and decide thereon afresh in accordance with law as well as the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
