TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 708
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utam, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of auto parts and accessories classifiable under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They received the capital goods viz. moulds on 27-9-1994 from M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. free of cost for using job work materials. Maruti Udyog Limited receive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld the Adjudication Order. 2. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant contested the demand of duty on merits as well as on limitation. He submits that the appellant availed credit on the basis of the supplementary invoice issued by the Maruti Udyog Limited, which cannot be disputed by the jurisdictional officers, recipient of the capital goods. He further submits that the Commissioner (Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. 3. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that supplementary invoice under Rule 7(1)(b) would be issued where additional amount of duty became recoverable from the suppliers of capital goods. In the present case, the supplier of capital goods had not issued any invoice und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued in respect of the payment of additional amount of duty. In the present case, it is seen that the Maruti Udyog Limited had not issued any invoice at the time of delivery of moulds in 1994. Thus, there is no question of payment of additional duty. Therefore, I find force in the submission of the ld. DR that the appellant availed credit on the supplementary invoice is not proper. In my view, su....