9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er two purchase orders, Revenue, probably, was also under the bonafide impression that mounting charges are not required to be added in the assessable value of their final product and as such was accepting the appellant's style of payment of central excise duty and service tax. The extended period of limitation, is available to the Revenue only when an assessee acts with a malafide intention and there is a positive suppression or misstatement by him with an intention to evade payment of duty. Otherwise also, we note that the appellant was working under a job work Notification No. 214/86 in which case there would be no duty liability on the assessee if the procedure as envisaged under the said Notification is duly followed by them. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f bodies of vehicles for transportation of goods. The bodies so manufactured by them are either cleared as such or after being fitted in the chassis supplied by the customers on payment of duty. 2. They entered into a contract with M/s Volvo India Ltd. under two purchase orders one for manufacture of the bodies and the other for mounting the same on chassis under the procedure of job work challans. The appellant paid duty of central excise on the bodies so fabricated and sold by them to their customers and in respect of the mounting charges, they paid the service tax by treating the said part of the contract as service. 3. Consequently by way of show-cause notice dated 27.02.2006, it was proposed to confirm the demand of duty in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions on merits and submits that inasmuch as they were paying service tax on the mounting activities and Revenue was accepting such service tax, the entire facts were in the knowledge of the Revenue and there can be no allegation of any suppression or malafide misstatement so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. He strengthens the above argument by submitting that whatever duty was paid by them was being availed as credit by their customers and as such there can be no motive for them to pay less duty. The entire situation was revenue neutral and as such he submits that the demand is barred by limitation. However, he fairly agrees that a part of the demand would fall within the limitation period for which they are ready to dischar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by him with an intention to evade payment of duty. Otherwise also, we note that the appellant was working under a job work Notification No. 214/86 in which case there would be no duty liability on the assessee if the procedure as envisaged under the said Notification is duly followed by them. However, having paid the duty on the value of the bodies only and having paid the service tax on the mounting charges, it cannot be said that the appellant was guilty of any malafide. The duty so paid by the appellant was available as credit to its principal customers i.e. M/s Volvo India Ltd., who were in a position to use the same for payment of tax on their final product, The entire exercise seems to be revenue neutral. 7. In view of our foregoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
