2017 (2) TMI 313

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts for Eicher Motor Ltd. Appellants have developed tools for manufacture of such parts for which Eicher Motors has paid the value of the tools. The case of the department is that the appellant has neither paid the duty on the value of the tools nor amortise .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the department, hence the notice is time barred. She further submits that the appellant have been carrying out manufacturing of components out of such tools under Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In this process no duty was paid, there is no question of inclusion of amortisation cost in the value of the parts manufactured and returned to the principal manufacturer. She also submits th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en the tools or dies is supplied by the customer free of cost, then it s amortisation cost has to be added in the value of the goods manufactured out of such tools and dies. He submits that the claim of the appellant that the demand is time barred is not correct for the reason that before the audit, neither department had occasion to know the fact of receipt of the value of the tools by the appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t tools manufactured by the appellant were used in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts for Eicher Motors. Eicher Motors has paid the value of the tools that means the tools were sold by the appellant to Eicher Motors. Since the tool was sold and the value of the same was received by the appellant the excise duty on such sales transaction cannot be demanded for the reason that the tools were not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se. However, the adjudicating authority has not given any finding on the issue of job work under Rule 4(5)(a). Therefore, the matter needs to be remanded to the original authority for passing a fresh order taking into consideration the above observation. 6. The impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority. ( Pronounced in Court on 25/1/2017 )
.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X