2011 (1) TMI 997

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the demands holding that extended period of limitation is not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case.   2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are the job workers of M/s.Bajaj Auto Ltd., and supplying various parts of scooters on job work basis. To manufacture these parts, M/s.Bajaj Auto Ltd., have given moulds and dies as per the specifications of the parts to the respondents on loan free basis (without any charge). The allegation against the respondents is that the cost of moulds and dies used in the manufacturing of the impugned parts was not amortized in the assessable value of the parts on their clearances to M/s.Bajaj Auto Ltd. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued, the same was adjudicated, duty....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o this contention, he placed reliance on the following case laws:-   i) Madras Peto-Chem Ltd., Vs. CCE, Madras, reported in 1999 (108) ELT 611 (SC).   ii) Century Tiles Ltd., Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad, reported in 2009 (236) ELT 583 (Tri.-Ahmed)   iii) Agrico Engineering Works (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CCE, Meerut, reported in 2000 (122) ELT 891 (Tribunal)   4. None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite notice. From perusal of records, we find that some of the respondents have requested to decide the issue on merits. As per the available records and in the interest of justice, the request of the respondents is accepted, the matter has been looked into the merits.   5. After hearing the Ld. DR, we found ....