TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 425
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Excise, Delhi-IV. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of sheet 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, DGCE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cessing activity and can be received back by them from the job worker for further use in the manufacture 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 challan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that this is a fact that some of the material was supplied free of cost by the buyer of the goods 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 app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emand is time barred as all the Returns, invoices were filed by them before the departmental officers and the 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 issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use notice is not correct as both the RUDs 18 and 19 are upto the period 2003-2004. We also note that in the RUDs 18 and 19 the total value is given financial yearwise and there is no mention about the break -up of each financial year about the clearances made during the one financial year. In absence of which it cannot be held whether there was any clearance made after 04.01.2004 by the noticees since the show cause notice was issued on 05.01.2005. We find the demand issued in the show cause notice beyond the period of one year is completely time barred. Since we are not able to find from the RUDs 18 and 19 any clearances after 04.01.2004, we hold that entire show cause notice is hit by time limitation. Accordingly, we set aside the order-....