9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . on free of cost basis for manufacture of the parts for the Zen car. Due to non-fulfillment of export obligation by the appellant, exemption given to them in Customs duty and interest due thereon, was deposited by the appellant voluntarily. The appellant issued supplementary invoices in respect of the CVD paid by them during March/April, 2002. In terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods), the vendor was liable to pay additional amount of duty on the additional amortization cost on account of additional cost of these moulds and fixtures due to the payment of customs duty by the appellant on these moulds/fixtures, etc. But the vendor only di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In that circumstances, it is prayed that impugned order to be set aside. 4. Heard the Ld. AR supported the impugned order. 5. Heard the Parties and considered the submissions. 6. I find that the Additional duty was payable by the vendors on account of non-fulfillment of export obligation by the appellant for which the appellant paid additional CVD alongwith interest, therefore, the additional amortization cost of goods supplied by the vendors is increased and the vendors took credit of the duty paid by the appellant. Consequently, the vendors on pointing out by the Revenue paid additional duty on amortization cost. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case the following issues emerges whether the charge of suppression/ mala fide i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... right Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) wherein this Tribunal observed as under: 6. As regards the short payment of duty demand of Rs. 3,07,354/- on the ground of amortization of the basic custom duty plus interest paid in respect of the moulds and dies, the duty demand is not disputed by the appellant, hence, the same is confirmed along with interest. However, as regards, the penalty for the short payment, the Tribunal in the case of Mark Auto Industries Ltd. Vs. Delhi-III and Rasandhik Engineering Industries Vs. CC Delhi-III final order No. A/56358-56359/2013-EX (DB) dated 01.05.2013 where the identical issue and identical facts are involved has held that penalty would not be imposable on the vendors. Following the judgment of the Tribunal, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
