9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortization cost of the moulds is to be added for arriving the assessable value of the finished product - Held that:- Period involved is from Aug-1998 to Jun 1999. As pointed out by the Ld. A.R. during Aug 1998, the Tribunal decision in the case of Flex Inds. Ltd V/s. CCE, Meerut (1997 (1) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI) was holding the field and appellant was not following the same. Conflicting decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R Per: P.K. Jain, Member Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was manufacturing certain parts on behalf of M/s. Whirlpool India Ltd. For the manufacturing of the said parts appellant was receiving the raw materials from M/s. Whirlpool India Ltd and after manufacturing the parts were being cleared on payment of duty. In addition to receiving raw materials the appellant had also received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise Rules,(sic) 1944. The Show Cause notice was issued in Jan 2000. The adjudicating authority has confirmed duty, interest and penalties. On filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the said order on merits but set aside the penalty as the duty was paid before the issuance of the show cause notice and in view of CESTAT decision in the case of Rashtr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... volved is from Aug 1998-Jun 1999 and during this period this Tribunal decision in the case of Flex Inds. Ltd V/s. CCE, Meerut [1997 (91) E.L.T. 120 (Tribunal)] was holding the field and as per the said decisions the appellant was required to include the amortization cost of moulds. The appellant has not done the same and therefore there is clear cut suppression of facts and mis-declaration as deta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 99, 6/7/1999. It is not disputed that non-inclusion of the cost of amortization was not disclosed to the department and therefore this vital fact was suppressed. The appellant have subscribed in the invoice to fake declaration that price is the sole consideration for sale and no other consideration in any form is flowing back to them. Under the circumstances, in our view extended period is correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
