TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (4) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner company is having central excise Registration Certificate and it has been supplying manufactured automobile parts and components, to M/s.Mahindra Ford Limited (Ford India Limited). While so, the petitioner company had developed `Dies and Tools to manufacture the automobile parts and components, as required by its clients, involving very high costs and investment. Therefore, the petitioner company had entered into an agreement, with M/s.Mahindra Ford Limited and had availed a tooling advance, to be adjusted against the supply of automobile parts and components. 3. The petitioner company, in its balance sheet, capitalized the said tooling advance and had claimed depreciation on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....advance of Rs.31,72,000/-, written off, is not leviable on the additional consideration paid, by M/s.Mahindra Ford Limited, in respect of the Chennai Unit, under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with appropriate interest, under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 6. The petitioner company had submitted a detailed reply, dated 16.11.2005, stating that there was no intention to evade payment of duty, as alleged by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II Commissionerate, and that the show cause notice issued, in respect of the year 2001-2002, is barred by limitation. 7. It had also been stated that the Joint Commissioner of Central Exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated by the second respondent, who had passed an order, dated 30.11.2007, in Order-in-Original No.21/2007. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had contended, inter alia, that the first respondent had passed the impugned order, without considering the ratio of the decision, in Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras Vs. Shardlow India Limited 1999[110] ELT 772 [T], and without following the directions issued by the appellate authority, while remanding the matter. 9. He had also stated that the first respondent had passed the impugned order without considering the principles laid down by the various decisions of the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Chennai, as well as the princi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preted the relevant provisions of law and had initiated action to recover the excise duty payable by the petitioner, with a view to prevent loss of revenue to the State. It had also been stated that the first respondent had considered all the issues raised by the petitioner company, while passing the impugned Order-in-Original, dated 30.11.2007. 12. It had also been stated that the petitioner company ought to have availed the alternative remedy provided under the statute. The impugned order, dated 30.11.2007, clearly states that an appeal against the said order may be filed, before the Commissioner (Appeals) Chennai, in the form prescribed, under Rule 3 of the Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001, within sixty days from the date on ....