TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (11) TMI 58
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp;The cost of these inputs was included in the assessable value of the exhaust systems for payment of duty by M/s. SMIL and duty was paid accordingly. CENVAT credit of the duty so paid was taken by the appellants. It so happened that there were price variations in respect of the inputs supplied by the appellants to M/s. SMIL. Where there was price increase, M/s. SMIL included the differential value in the assessable value of the exhaust systems and paid differential duty on the goods by raising supplementary invoices on the appellants. CENVAT credit of this differential duty also was taken by the appellants on the strength of the supplementary invoices. Such credit taken over a period of time (A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the latter (making use of the inputs supplied free of cost by the appellants) and supplied to the appellants. A show-cause notice had been issued to M/s. SMIL invoking the proviso to Section 11 (1) of the Central Excise Act to recover differential duty on the exhaust systems. That demand was based on the alleged fact that the revised value of the inputs supplied by the appellants had not been taken into account by M/s. SMIL for payment of duty on the exhaust systems. The party contested the demand mainly on the ground of limitation. The dispute came to be adjudicated upon by the jurisdictional Commissioner, who confirmed the demand of duty&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts) and removed to the appellants. The dispute between Sharda Motor Industries Ltd. and the Revenue was settled by the Tribunal in the aforesaid case. Para 7 of the Tribunal's judgment in that case is reproduced below :- "7.That apart,? the fact remains that the error made by the appellant was both ways, resulting in higher valuation in some cases and lower valuation in some other cases. The appellant had no gain in the matter also inasmuch as whatever duty was paid by them was being reimbursed to them by M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. and duty paid by the appellant was available as credit to the appellant's buyer. Therefore, appellant's submission that short-levy took place on account of oversight (to take note of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... differential amount of duty paid by M/s. SMIL under supplementary invoices. These supplementary invoices were held to be inadmissible for the purpose of availing such credit in the impugned order. This is on the ground that the differential amount of duty had become recoverable from M/s. SMIL in respect of the exhaust systems (inputs of the appellants), on account of short levy by reason of wilful misstatement/suppression of facts (by M/s. SMIL) with intent to evade payment of duty. The provision invoked for the purpose is Rule 7(1)(b), which reads as follows:- "RULE 7. Documents and accounts.- (1) CENVAT credi....