2016 (10) TMI 120

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Sanghavi i/b. M/s. PDS Legal for the petitioner Mr. M. Dwivedi i/b. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the respondent ORDER P. C. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges that part of the order dated 29th October, 2014, which, according to the petitioner, contains an adverse remark and one letter dated 6th April, 2015 issued by the second respon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned order have been paid, then, bearing in mind the bonafide conduct of the petitioner, this remark should be deleted. 5) On the other hand, it is submitted that the remark was justified. Inasmuch as, the petitioner was found to have not disclosed the value of dies/fixtures in the declared value of parts/components. This resulted in short payment of the Central Excise Duty. It is in these circu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isclosure, were considered. The commission found that the petitioner before us is a subsidiary unit of M/s. Tata Motors Limited engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts and components. They were receiving dies/fixtures free of cost from M/s. Tata Motors Limited for use in their manufacturing process, but failed to include the amortized value of such dies/fixtures in the final value of par....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the petitioner/applicant had similar units manufacturing auto parts/components for M/s. Tata Motors Limited, where dies/fixtures were being supplied by M/s. Tata Motors Limited. They were, therefore, aware about inclusion of value of such dies/fixtures in the value of parts/components manufatured. 7) We do not think that in the given facts and circumstances, there was any need to record a fi....