TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1028
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case are that the appellants are engaged in printing and lamination of flexible packing materials falling under Chapter No 39 of CETA, 1985. During the course of scrutiny of their Central Excise records, the officers noticed that the assessee was receiving copper engraved printing cylinders for the purpose of printing plastic pouches. During the investigation, it was noticed that the appellant had not included designing charges of cylinders and the cost of copper engraved printing cylinders in the assessable value of the goods produced by the appellants. It was also found that the appellant had recovered these charges in the form of debit notes/commercial invoices. Accordingly, show cause notice dt 18.6.1998 was issued demanding Rs. 11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....However, he pleads that he is arguing only on limitation. The contention is that the issue of cost of dies/tooling/moulding charges collected from the buyers was debated at the time and there were conflicting views till the matter was finally resolved by the Larger Bench in the case of Mutual Industries Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - 2000(117)ELT 578 (LB). In this background, he has argued the period of limitation could not be invoked. Hew relied on following judgments in support of his plea: i) CCE, Aurangabad vs Anil Polymers Pvt Ltd 2009(237)ELT 358 (Tri.Mum). ii) CCE, Trichy vs Supreme Industries Ltd 2008(222)ELT 520 (Tri Chennai) iii) CCE, Hyderabad vs ITW Signode (India) Ltd 2005(179) ELT 12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the larger period can be invoked in the present case. 7. We have considered the judgements cited by the ld. Counsel. However, we are required to apply the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Paradise Plastic Enterprises Ltd. (supra) and that of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Amco Batteries Ltd. (supra). In the case of Paradise Plastic Enterprises Ltd. on an identical issue pertaining to the includability of cost of moulds in the assessable value the Tribunal noted that there was no suppression of facts and an intention to evade the payment of duty and on that ground held that the demands were time barred. The findings recorded in Paras 3 and 4 are noted herein below : - It is contended on behalf of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. We find merit in the contention raised by the appellant. During the relevant period the issue regarding inclusion of amortized cost of moulds in the assessable value of the goods was not finally settled. It is true that the assessee paid differential duty much before the issue was settled by a Larger Bench of this Tribunal. But at the same time when different orders of the Tribunal had taken conflicting views on the liability, it cannot be contended that there was wilful suppression of fact on the part of the appellant in order to avoid payment of duty. Under these circumstances, we, therefore, hold that imposition of penalty under Sec. 11AC was not justified in this case. We, therefore, set aside the demand of penalty against the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Products v. CCE, Bangalore, 1989 (4) SCC 275 this Court has held that something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer or producer of conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise, is required to be established before it is saddled with any liability beyond the period of six months. The Court pertinently observed that mere failure or negligence on the part of the producer or manufacturer either not to take out a licence in case where there was scope for doubt as to whether licence was required to be taken out or where there was scope for doubt whether goods were dutiable or not, would not attract Sec. 11A of the Act. 10. In the present case also there....