2018 (4) TMI 1229

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cal) Shri R. Parthasarathy, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Respondent Per Bench The appellants are manufacturers of automobile parts and seat parts. During the period April 2006 to April 2008, they manufactured and supplied seat assembly to Hyundai Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (HMIL for short). However, certain material for use in the manufacture of such seat a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for hearing, ld. counsel submits that the appellants were under bona fide belief that the value of FOC material need not to be included since the same would be forming part of the assessable value of the motor vehicles cleared by HMIL on payment of duty. The entire issue is therefore revenue neutral. He further submits that the issue now stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in SRF Ltd. V....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....belief and in fact when the matter was brought to their notice, they immediately paid the amount of differential duty along with interest thereon. 3. On the other hand, ld. AR supports the impugned order. He draws our attention to page 7 of the impugned order wherein the adjudicating authority has distinguished the facts of the present case vis-`-vis facts in International Auto (supra) and has po....