TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 1038
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omers to the appellants in the assessable value of their final products on amortization basis. The demand of Rs. 1,18,08,897/- stands confirmed against the appellant for the period June, 1995 to March, 2000 by way of raising show cause notice dated 29.6.2000. 2. Arguing on the time bar issue, ld.Advocate submits that prior to the period, the appellant were filing price list for approval. Some of the price list in part II relating to contract value had mentioned in the said price list that moulds and dies are being supplied by the customers to the appellants free of cost and only contract value was reflected. Same was duly approved by the proper officer. The Tribunals decision in the case of Flex Industries reported in 1997 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd also paid duty for the period starting June,1996 to November, 1998. Though the period covered in the SCN issued on 29.6.2000 is from June,1995 to March, 2000 but in fact the duty confirmed is for the period 1.6.1995 to 30.6.1998 only. They have also paid duty for the period July, 1998 to March, 2000. This has also been accepted by the Commissioner while observing that amount of Rs. 69,74,180/- also stands paid by the assessee. Inasmuch as they are not contesting the said confirmation of demand, the challenge in the present appeal is only to the amount of Rs. 48,34,717/- confirmed for the period 1.6.1995 to June 30.6.1998. 3. Ld.Advoate fairly agrees that the issue stands decided by the larger bench in the case Mutual Industries Ltd. v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e circumstances, the entire set of facts were placed before the Revenue and the Revenue was not justified in alleging suppressio for invoking longer period of limitation. As such, confirmation of demand of duty for the period 1.6.1995 to 30.6.1998 be set aside alongwith setting aside penalty. 5. Countering Ld.DR appearing for the Revenue submits that price list filed in the year 1993 would be of no relevance inasmuch as the period involved in the present case started running from June, 1995 onwards. She also submits that the appellants letter dated 31.12.98 was addressed by them to the department subsequent to the initiation of investigation by the Revenue as regard availability of credit of duty paid on such tools and dies. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of cost by their customers. Further the appellants letter dated 31.12.1998 is not being disputed by the Revenue. The Revenues stand that the said letter was written after the investigations were started in June, 1998 cannot be appreciated, inasmuch as the said investigations were in respect of availability of credit by the appellants on moulds and dies. Further when there are contrary judgements and the larger bench decision to the contrary stands passed subsequently and earlier decisions were in favour of the assessee, the benefit of extended period is not available to the Revenge. The decisions are in respect of the same disputed issue that amortization cost of tools and dies supplied free of cost by their custom....