2015 (7) TMI 305

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... components and they received the goods Star Inner Cone/Dual Cone Core automobile components from the principal manufacturers M/s.Natesan Synchrocones Private Ltd. and M/s.Divgi Warner Pvt. Ltd., Pune for carrying out carbon lining and returned the same under Rule 4 (5) of CCR 2004. While returning the goods were described as Synchronise Rings-GBS and appellants have discharged central excise duty on the value addition of carbon lining. The adjudicating authority demanded differential duty on the value of materials supplied by the principal manufacturer and confirmed the demand of Rs. 12,53,43,725/- and also imposed penalty under Section 11AC and also penalty under Rule 57 of CER 2002. 2. The Ld. Advocate for the appellants submitted a wri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....:- (i) International Auto Ltd. Vs CCE Bihar 2005 (183) ELT 239 (SC) (ii) Lawkim Ltd. Vs CCE Pune 2007 (218) ELT 142(Tri.-Mum.) (iii) Automative Stampings & Assemblies Ltd. 2009 (247) ELT 712 (Tri.-Ahmd.) He submits that in view of Supreme Courts judgement in the International Auto Ltd. Vs. CCE Bihar (supra) the issue stands settled in their favour. He pleaded for waiver of predeposit. 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterates the findings of the adjudication order and submits that appellants on one hand claimed that they have carried out only job work but on the other hand they are claiming that they are manufacturing excisable goods and paid duty on goods cleared to principal manufacturer. They never intimated the department of carr....