2000 (3) TMI 508

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emblies for the purpose of payment of central excise duty, the value of the bushes received free of charge was excluded. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 1-12-95 was issued demanding duty of about Rs. 1.7 lakhs in respect of clearances of axle beam assemblies for the period November 1990 to August 1995. The Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh confirmed this duty demand in adjudication. In appeal, the duty demand was set aside by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on the ground that the bushes had been received under Rule 57F(2) procedure from M/s. Punjab Tractor Ltd. and that the departmental authorities were in the knowledge of this fact. The Commissioner also held that the responsibility for discharging the differenti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n this connection, relied on the final order Nos. 1627 & 1628/99-A dated 7-12-99 passed by the CEGAT in an identical case. 4. In the present case, it is admitted position that the bushes constituted part of the axle beam assemblies. This Tribunal considered the identical issue in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. M/s. R.H. Industries in final order Nos. 1627 & 1628/99-A dated 7-12-99 on the question of including the cost of bushes in the assessable value. The Tribunal held as under :- "3. R.H. Industries were manufacturing Axle Beam Assembly which is a component part of Tractors manufactured by Punjab Tractors Ltd. Axle Beam Bushes which were part of Assembly, were supplied to the appellant by Punjab Tractors Ltd., free of cost. While c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing the appellant raised contention that the show cause notice covering the period from November 1990 to July 1995 cannot be sustained. The contention is that for invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Department should not only show that there was short levy on account of fraud, collusion, mis-statement or suppression it must also be shown that said fraud, collusion, mis-statement or suppression must have been made with intent to evade payment of duty. In the instant case even if it is shown that there was a short payment of duty. In the absence of wilful mis-statement with intent to evade payment of duty the Department cannot, it is argued, invoke the proviso to Section 11A. In support of this argument Ld. Co....