9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate For the Respondent: Shri. S. Bector, DR JUDGEMENT Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench): Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue is identical. Both the appellants are job worker of M/s. Maruti Udyog and are manufacturing various parts of motor vehicles for M/s. Maruti Udyog. 2. In or around 1994, M/s. Maruti Udyog imported various moulds for the manufacture o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Udyog was availed as credit by the present appellant and there is no dispute about the same. 4. The said payment of duty and interest by M/s. Maruti Udyog was in or around March, 2002. Revenue raised an objection that the additional duty paid by M/s. Maruti Udyog along with interest is also required to be included in the value of the parts cleared by the appellants in the past on amortisation b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e would be barred by limitation. Anyhow, inasmuch as M/s. Maruti had paid the duty and interest subsequently, and the duty paid by the appellants is available as credit to M/s. Maruti, the entire situation was revenue neutral and that is why the appellants were ready to pay the duty in question. He clarified that duty paid by the appellant already stand availed as credit by M/s. Maruti Udyog. In s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ured by them. It is only subsequently that M/s. Maruti had to pay the duty along with interest, in which case the value of the moulds got raised. As such, the Revenues contention that said raising of cost of the moulds would be applicable retrospectively and it would be the higher cost of moulds which have to be amortized in the value of the parts does not stand disputed by the assessee and they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
