TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(AR) for the respondent ORDER Per Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts for Eicher Motor Ltd. Appellants have developed tools for manufacture of such parts for which Eicher Motors has paid the value of the tools. The case of the department is that the appellant has neither paid the duty on the value of the tools nor amortised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the department, hence the notice is time barred. She further submits that the appellant have been carrying out manufacturing of components out of such tools under Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In this process no duty was paid, there is no question of inclusion of amortisation cost in the value of the parts manufactured and returned to the principal manufacturer. She also submits tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the tools or dies is supplied by the customer free of cost, then it s amortisation cost has to be added in the value of the goods manufactured out of such tools and dies. He submits that the claim of the appellant that the demand is time barred is not correct for the reason that before the audit, neither department had occasion to know the fact of receipt of the value of the tools by the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tools manufactured by the appellant were used in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts for Eicher Motors. Eicher Motors has paid the value of the tools that means the tools were sold by the appellant to Eicher Motors. Since the tool was sold and the value of the same was received by the appellant the excise duty on such sales transaction cannot be demanded for the reason that the tools were not ....