2014 (1) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty paid on the moulds/dies immediately on receipt of moulds/dies and the value portion of the moulds/dies was to be paid in instalments along with 15% interest. The dispute in this case is in respect of front bumper and Rear Bumper of Zen Classic model of the cars. There is no dispute that the appellant determined amortized cost of the moulds and dies based on total value of the moulds/dies, their life expectancy and number of parts likely to be manufactured during the life of the moulds/dies. On this basis, the appellant arrived at amortization cost of Rs. 787.92 per piece in respect of front bumper and Rs. 610.71 per piece in respect of rear bumper. There is no dispute that this amortized cost of the moulds/dies for the bumpers was incl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... imposed on them under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 1,59,22,066/- was dropped. 1.3 Against the above order of Commissioner, this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Sh. B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate, ld. counsel for the appellant, pleaded that there is no dispute that the appellant had included the amortized cost on moulds/dies in the assessable value on which the excise duty has been paid, that amortized cost had been determined on the basis of life expectancy of the moulds/dies and number of parts which could be manufactured during the life expectancy of the moulds/dies, that the Department seeks to revise the amortized cost and demand differential duty on the basis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e basis of parts which can be manufactured during total life expectancy of the moulds/dies and that in view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. 4. Sh. Sanjay Jain, DR, ld. Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner in it and pleaded that when moulds/dies were used only up to Sept, 2002, for determining the amortization cost, only the number of parts manufactured with the use of moulds/dies up to Sept.'2002 only is to be considered. He therefore pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. There is no dispute that the appellant have paid duty on the value which i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X