2016 (8) TMI 437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order of the Commissioner, the Revenue has also filed appeal. Both these appeals are being decided by this common order. 1.1 The matte mainly concerns with the inclusion of cost of pattern development charges in the assessable value of the castings being manufactured by the assessee. In this case, Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum had issued a show-cause notice dated 12.5.2000 which had been adjudicated by the Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 10/2002 dated 31.7.2002. The said Order-in-Original dated 31.7.2002 was appealed before the CESTAT and the CESTAT decided the appeal vide Final Order No. 1191/2005 dated 20.7.2005 interalia holding that "the demands could be re-worked out after considering the prayer of time-bar". By t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ance deposit of Rs. 45 lakhs till the amount exhaust. 3.  Though the amount of Rs. 45 lakhs was paid by them after detection of non-payment of duty on cost of moulds/patterns, by the department, however considering the fact that they paid the entire amount of duty involved of Rs. 45 lakhs in advance instead of paying duty worked out only on the amortized value, which, for the period involved in the case would have been much less, I take a lenient view in the matter and impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- only  ( Rupees one lakh only) under Rule 173 (Q) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4.  I hold that the Modvat Credit of Rs. 1,96,083.00 taken in respect of the pattern received from M/s Techser Tools P....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....zed value of castings. Instead the Commissioner imposed penalty in violation of the direction of the Hon'ble Tribunal. 4.  We have carefully considered the facts on record and the submissions of both the sides. 5.  We find that in terms of the Tribunal's earlier order dated 20.7.2005, the commissioner's order dated 12.6.2007 has failed to re-work out the duty demand after reconsidering the prayer of time-bar though the issued direction to the assessee, M/s Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. to furnish invoice-wise amotization amount of pattern charges and differential duty thereon to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bellary, who was to appropriate the duty so calculated out of the advance deposit of Rs. 45 lakhs.....