9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the impugned order for denial of cenvat credit on supplementary invoices issued by the vendor. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant imported moulds, dies, and checking fixtures and machinery under EPCG scheme in 1994-95 for the manufacture of ZEN car and supplied to the same to their vendor i.e. M/s Toshi Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Bright Brothers Pvt. Ltd. vide Final Order No.50726/2015 dated 13.02.2015 wherein this Tribunal held that on the part of vendors there is no suppression of facts. As there is no suppression of facts, therefore, the Provisions of Rule 7(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not applicable and the appellant has correctly taken the cenvat credit. 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, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led for inasmuch as there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee to amortize the lower cost of the moulds in the value of the vehicle parts. As confirmation of demand of duty has not been disputed by the appellants, we uphold the same and set aside the penalties imposed upon both the appellants. 9. It has been relied by this Tribunal in the case of Bright Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) wherein this Tribunal observed as under: 6. As regards the short payment of duty demand of ₹ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
