Tribunal upholds Appeals Commissioner's decision, finds no evidence of duty evasion. Revenue appeal rejected.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the differential duty for the extended period, finding no evidence of suppression or intent to evade duty by the respondent. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, and the Order-in-Original was upheld.

---

---

Issues:
Confirmation of demand on free moulds and dies supplied on loan basis by M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., setting aside of differential duty for the extended period.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Confirmation of demand on free moulds and dies
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal confirming the demand for duty on free moulds and dies supplied by M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. to the respondent on a loan basis. The adjudicating authority issued show cause notices for demand of duty for specific periods, which were confirmed in the adjudication orders. The respondent appealed against these orders, and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) disposed off both appeals. The Revenue contested the setting aside of the differential duty for the extended period, arguing that the respondent failed to inform the department about the free supplies, justifying the demand under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) found that the respondent had informed the authorities about the receipt of the moulds and dies, and internal audits did not raise any objections during the relevant periods. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that there was no evidence of suppression or intent to evade payment of duty by the respondent.

Issue 2: Setting aside of differential duty for the extended period
The learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand for duty for the extended period, citing that the respondent had informed the authorities about the receipt of the disputed moulds and that internal audits did not raise any objections. The Revenue contended that the respondent did not consider the cost of moulds in finalizing product costs and had not disclosed the supply of moulds on a loan basis to the department until scrutiny of private documents. However, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to provide specific evidence of suppression of facts and that the regular audits conducted by the department did not dispute the non-inclusion of mould costs. As there were no adverse audit findings on this issue, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner's decision to set aside the Order-in-Original.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the differential duty for the extended period, finding no evidence of suppression or intent to evade duty by the respondent. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, and the Order-in-Original was upheld.

---