2013 (9) TMI 1038

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r final products on amortization basis. The demand of ₹ 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 (91) ELT J-120 held that amortization cost of moulds and dies supp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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 ₹ 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 ₹ 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. vs. CCE-2000(117) ELT 578 (Tri.-LB). He assailed the impugned order on the point of limitation by submitting that there was co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uch, 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. She submits that investigations were started in June 98 and the appellant should have included amortization cost of tools and dies in the value of the final products. She refers to the dec....