9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner that they have decided to follow the said advice and have started working out the details of amortization cost in the supply to their customers like Honda Seil and Mahindra & Mahiandra. They also submit that they started working out amortization cost in all the cases and to pay duty on the past clearances also. In view of the said letter, they started adding amortization cost with effect from subsequent to the said letter and also paid duty for the period starting June, 1996 to November, 1998. Though the period covered in the SCN issued on 29.6.2000 is from June, 1995 to March, 2000 but in fact the duty confirmed is for the period 1.6.1995 to 30.6.1998 only. They have also paid duty for the period July, 1998 to March, 2000. This has a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment. As such, the Revenue was fully aware of this fact. In any case, he submits that they have written a letter dated 31.12.1998 to the department detailing the entire facts and also accepting their duty liability intimating that they would also discharge duty liability for the past period. Accordingly duty was discharged by them for the period from July, 1998 to March, 2000. In the circumstances, the entire set of facts were placed before the Revenue and the Revenue was not justified in alleging suppression for invoking longer period of limitation. As such, confirmation of demand of duty for the period 1.6.1995 to 30.6.1998 be set aside alongwith setting aside penalty. 5. Countering Ld.DR appearing for the Revenue submits that price list ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1998. 7. In the light of elaborate facts given in the preceding paras that the appellant was filing price lists. Though the said period is not involved in the present appeal, we find that the Revenue was admittedly in the knowledge of the fact that the appellant was using moulds and dies in the manufacture of final products provided free of cost by their customers. Further the appellant's letter dated 31.12.1998 is not being disputed by the Revenue. The Revenue's stand that the said letter was written after the investigations were started in June, 1998 cannot be appreciated, inasmuch as the said investigations were in respect of availability of credit by the appellants on moulds and dies. Further when there are contrary judgements and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
