2007 (10) TMI 156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Chacko, Member (J)]. - The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of unmachined iron castings. Three units of theirs are involved in this case, which are referred to as Units I, II and III. Unit I is the 'Casting Unit' (foundry) and the other two units are the 'Component Units' manufacturing automobile components out of the castings received from Unit I. During the period, April to August 1996,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ifferential duty of Rs. 15,27,387/- for the above period as also to impose penalties on the party under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. These proposals were contested on merits as well as on limitation. In adjudication of the dispute, the original authority confirmed the above demand of duty against the assessee and imposed on them a penalty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Rs. 14.16 per kg in respect of permanent mould foundry and sand mould foundry respectively. This accounts for the differential duty which was rightly demanded. 3. The surviving challenge is on limitation. It is the case of the appellants that what they had made was just an arithmetical mistake in calculating raw material cost for the purpose of determining the cost of production in terms of R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issions, we find that the allegation of suppression raised in the show-cause notice is not tenable inasmuch as the assessee had filed declaration effective from 1-4-1996 under Rule 173C and had also filed RT42 returns from time to time during the period of dispute. It is also obvious that they invoked the correct provision of law for determining the assessable value of the goods. It appears they m....