TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, nullifying penalties and interest. Lack of malafide intent noted.</h1> <h3>SK GOYAL & OTHERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE</h3> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for the specified period and nullifying interest and penalties. The decision was ... Bar of limitation - Addition of the value of moulds and dies - Assessable value as per the amortization basis of final product- Held that:- Amortization cost of tools and dies supplied free of cost by their customers and is required to be added in the assessable value of their final products – relying upon Star Glass Works vs. CCE [2002 (10) TMI 728 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] - there was no malafide on the part of the appellant to evade payment of duty - the benefit of limitation to the appellant extended – Order set aside – Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Adding value of moulds and dies to assessable value of final products.2. Time bar issue regarding demand of duty.3. Conflict in Tribunal decisions on amortization cost inclusion.4. Allegations of suppression by Revenue for longer limitation period.5. Intent to evade duty payment by the appellant.Analysis:Issue 1: Adding value of moulds and diesThe appellant, engaged in manufacturing sheet metal components, faced a dispute over adding the value of moulds and dies supplied by customers to their final products' assessable value on an amortization basis. The demand of Rs.1,18,08,897/- for the period June 1995 to March 2000 was confirmed against the appellant through a show cause notice dated 29.6.2000.Issue 2: Time bar issueThe appellant argued on the time bar issue, citing conflicting Tribunal decisions during the relevant period. They contended that the law was unclear, and conflicting decisions existed, leading to ambiguity. The appellant emphasized that they had no malafide intent or suppression of facts, especially considering the conflicting decisions by the Tribunal.Issue 3: Conflict in Tribunal decisionsThe appellant highlighted conflicting Tribunal decisions regarding the inclusion of amortization cost of moulds and dies in the assessable value of final products. They referred to various decisions and Supreme Court confirmations where the benefit of limitation was extended to assessees due to conflicting judgments.Issue 4: Allegations of suppressionThe appellant contended that the Revenue was aware of the situation as they had declared in price lists that moulds and dies were supplied free of cost, which was approved by the department. They also pointed out that they had informed the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner about adding amortization costs in the assessable value, and had paid duties accordingly.Issue 5: Intent to evade duty paymentThe Revenue argued that the appellant's actions, especially the letter dated 31.12.1998, were in response to investigations initiated by the Revenue regarding duty payment on tools and dies. They referenced a Tribunal decision to support their stance that there was an intent to evade duty payment.In the final judgment, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, extending the benefit of limitation and setting aside the demand for the specified period, along with confirming relief by nullifying interest and penalties. The decision was based on the acknowledgment of the lack of malafide intent on the appellant's part and the existence of conflicting Tribunal decisions on the disputed issue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
