TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 425
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....metal component and frames falling under Chapter heading 94 of the Central Excise Tariff. As a result of investigation by the department it was found that they were indulging in suppression of assessable value by not adding the value of inputs received free of cost from their buyer and also amortization cost on tooling in the assessable value of the final product. The appellants were manufacturing sheet metal components and frames and supplying to M/s Lear Sheeting Pvt. Ltd. (LSPL) on payment of duty without adding value of items supplied free of cost by their buyer. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued by the Additional Director General, DGCEI, New Delhi vide F. No. 4/INT/DGCEI/HQ/04/73 dated 04.01.2005 demanding the duty amounting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacture of final product. He submits that from April 2000 Rule 57AC (5A) of Central Excise Rule and Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules dealt with provisions for sending the inputs for getting intermediate goods manufactured from a job worker and the provision under these Rules 57AC(5A)/Rule 4(5)(a) are similar to the erstwhile Rule 57F(4) with regard to sending of material for further processing to the job worker and to receive it back within 180 days. He submits that in the present case a principal manufacturer has followed the job work procedure under Rule 57F/57AC/Rule 4(5) for sending the inputs to the appellants under different challans for getting the intermediate products manufactured. Since the entire transactions are covere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the appellants and cost of this material was not added in the assessable value by the appellant. Therefore, the Commissioner has rightly confirmed the demand holding addition of value of those materials in the assessable value of the products manufactured by the appellants. He, therefore, submits that their appeal needs to be rejected. 5. After hearing both the sides we find that the Commissioner in the operative part of the order in para 1 has held as under:- (i) I confirm the invocation of the extended period for the recovery of central excise duty under Section 11A (1) proviso of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 6. We find that appellants have raised the ground of time bar against the issue of show cause notice in the present appeals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e factory was visited by the audit officer, held that it is not clear whether the audit had in fact examined this issue or not and unless that point is clarified it cannot be examined whether or not the visit by the audit would indeed make a difference and Commissioner concluded that there was wilful suppression on the part of the appellants to evade the payment of excise duty. 9. We find from the record that RT-12 returns/ ER-1 returns were regularly being filed by the appellants to the department. We also take note of the fact that appellants were regularly being audited by the Central Excise officers and no objection on the issue of free supply of goods by the principal manufacturer as well as on amortisation cost was raised by the audi....