9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the duty demand and penalty as confirmed by the adjudicating authority against the respondent, by holding the same to be time-barred. 2. We have heard both the sides. 3. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pulsator during the peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of inclusion of the value of the bush in the value of the pulsator for the purpose of determination of assessable value. He has rejected the plea of the respondents that since they received the bush free of cost under Rule 57F(4) challan and did not avail any Modvat credit and that their supplier debited 10% of its value before sending the same to them and as such its value is not required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dded in the value of the pulsator for determining the duty, cannot be entertained and accepted for reasons detailed above. The duty demand has been, therefore, rightly raised against the respondents. 5. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the duty demand against the respondents only on the ground of limitation by holding that the extended period could not be invoked as it was a case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the credit available to the assessee himself and not by way of availability of credit to the buyer of assessee's manufactured goods. No credit could be claimed by the respondents in this case on the item "bush" as they received it under 57F(4) challans free of cost. The fact that M/s. Electrolux Voltas Ltd., to whom the respondents supplied the "pulsator" with "bush" fitted therein, could take the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laid down in Tamil Nadu Housing Board (supra) had been wrongly applied by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the facts of the present case. Therefore, his findings holding the duty demand as time-barred are set, aside. 6. In view of the discussion made above, the duty demand of Rs. 73,042/- is confirmed against the respondents. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the penalty on them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
