9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent(s) ORDER Per : Devender Singh The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant imported various capital goods such as dies, moulds etc. during 1994-1995 on payment of concessional customs duty and nil countervailing duty (CVD) under Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme. The appellant gave these capital goods on free-of-cost basis to their vendors. At the time of supply of components, which had been manufactured out of capital goods given by the appellant, the vendors added the cost of amortization of such capital goods on proportionate basis in the assessable value of the components. But in the year 2000-01 the appellant paid the differential dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal. 3. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the demand was confirmed in the instant case as it was inferred by the First Appellate Authority that there was suppression of facts on the part of vendors as they never amortized the additional cost of capital goods. He informed that the Department initiated the investigation against the five vendors namely M/s Bright Brothers, M/s Sun Vaccum Formers, M/s Supreme Industries, M/s Mark Auto Industries and M/s Ranee Industries. The Ld. Advocate further submits that the proceedings against the vendors have revealed no suppression. In this regard, he drew attention to the following High Court/Tribunal judgments relating to these vendors:- 1. CCE, Noida Vs. M/s Supreme Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELT 607 (All.)). Similarly, in the case of M/s Sun Vaccum Former Pvt. Ltd., the Department went in appeal before the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh on the question of law relating to imposition of penalty Under Section 11AC and the appeal failed (C.E.A. No. 56 of 2007 decided on 07.09.2007). 6. In view of the above, the element of suppression of fact by the vendors is not established and the supplementary invoices issued by them cannot be said to be tainted with the element of suppression in Section 11AC. In view of this, the conclusion drawn by the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was suppression on the part of the vendors is not correct. 7. In view of the above, the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
