2001 (1) TMI 414

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ost basis for making the component parts. The moulds and dies received by the appellant were treated as capital goods and Modvat credit on the duty paid on them was availed of. They did not include the cost of the moulds and dies in fixing the value of the components by resorting to the principle of amortisation. The goods, namely, components of the motorcycles manu- factured by them were not valued taking into consideration the amortisation value of the moulds and dies utilised in their manufacture. None of the records maintained by the appellant showed the amortisation value of the moulds and dies, which went into the production of component parts of the motorcycle. So, show cause notices were issued covering the period of five years, nam....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s case. In support of this argument, he relies on the decision of this Tribunal in C.C.E., Aurangabad v. Marathwada Glass Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 1999 (85) ECR 94, Creative Cartons v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - 1999 (106) E.L.T. 79 and Velpack Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, final order in appeal No. E/6222/92-A. In view of the decisions in the above three cases, it is argued that non-payment of duty without including amortisation value of the moulds and dies, cannot be treated as mala fide with intent to evade payment of duty. This argument appears to be quite attractive, but we do not find our way to accept the same for the following reasons. Appellant, while getting moulds and dies from Hero Honda, treated them as c....