2010 (8) TMI 205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....    Shri K. Venkatesan, Asst. Manager, for the Appellant. Shri Vivekanandan, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. - This appeal is filed by M/s. Maini Precision Products Pvt. Ltd. (MPPL for short). MPPL is engaged in the manufacture of Automobile Components falling under Chapter 87 of the I Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Facts....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ise Act. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the findings of the original authority and rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. 2. In the appeal filed before the Tribunal, the appellants have submitted that they had been receiving material for conversion on job work basis and they were not required to reckon the cost of tools received free of cost. When they f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the lower authorities was not sustainable and deserved to be set aside. 3. Shri K. Venkatesan, Asst. Manager representing the appellants submitted that the assessee had paid the duty found due before issue of show cause notice and paid interest due after adjudication. He produced evidence for payment of interest. He reiterated the submission that short payment had occurred due to inadv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of Rs. 40,015/- over a period of 4½ years. According to the appellants, they paid duty to the tune of Rs. 12 crores every year. This claim has not been contested before us. The appellants have claimed that omission in not paying the entire duty due on account of use of tools received free of cost from the principal manufacturer had occurred due to inadvertence. We find that the consistent case....