TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 895
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he excise duty paid on the inputs and capital goods, used in or in relation to, manufacture of their final products. The period of dispute in this case is 2002. During this period, the appellant in terms of their contract with M/s Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as GWSSB) supplied cement coated pipes and epoxy coated pipes to them. However, for cement coating, they had no facility and the duty paid pipes were being cleared to job workers for cement coating from where the same were being supplied to the GWSSB. The Department was of the view that the cost of cement coating and epoxy coating should be included in the assessable value of the Saw pipes, issued a SCN dated 12.07.2005 for demand of differential dut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llants factory, that the Commissioner, as is clear from his findings in para 13.3 of the impugned order, has confirmed this demand, observing that the appellant before the issue of the SCN has admitted the duty liability on charges for coating being done inside the factory and had disputed only the duty liability on the coating charges being done outside the factory on job work basis, that there is no evidence that any coating work was being done inside the appellants factory, that the Commissioner in giving his finding in para 13.3 of the impugned order that the certain coating was being done inside the appellants factory, had not discussed the evidence on the basis of which this conclusion has been drawn by him, and that in any case, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at coating. On the issue of limitation, he pleaded that the appellant never informed to the Department that certain epoxy coating of the pipes is being undertaken by the appellant themselves in their factory, and that they are availing of Cenvat Credit in respect of the coating material. Therefore, he pleaded that the longer limitation period under proviso to section 11A(1) has been correctly invoked and penalty has been correctly imposed on the appellant company under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rule, 2002. He, accordingly, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. Shri Manish Saharan, in rejoinder, pointed out to the statement dated 16.10.2002 of Sh. Krishan Gopal Mantri, wherein in reply to question No. 4 as to wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is not includible in the assessable value. However, on this point we find that Sh. K. G. Mantri, General Manager (Commercial) of the appellant company is his statement dated 16.02.2002 on being specifically asked, has stated that Cenvat Credit of the material used for coating was being availed by them. In our view if this is so, the value of the epoxy coating would be includable in the assessable value of the pipes, irrespective of whether the coating is done inside the factory or outside the factory. However, the Commissioner in the impugned order has not gone into this point for which, in our view, this matter would have to be remanded. As regards, the extended limitation period under proviso to section 11A(1), we are of the view that the....