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

....hu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal. 2. Today when the matter came up 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the m and since they were under bonafide 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 f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Auto judgment fully applies to the present case. 5. Heard both sides. 6. After hearing both sides, we find that the ratio laid down in respect of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 4086 & 4087/2001 in the judgment of the Apex court in International Auto - 2005 (183) ELT 239 (SC) will apply to all fours to the facts of the appeal in hand. The said ratio has been followed by the Tribunal i....