TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Order in Amount 'Rs Appeal Date Original Date Duty Penalty E/531/11 Press Metal Industries Nashik 16.12.10 24.08.10 1016647 1016647 E/532/11 Nashik Metal Dust Nashik 16.12.10 26.08.10 42526 42526 E/533/11 Power Deal energy, Nashik 16.12.10 31.08.10 1462392 1462392 1.2 Initially these three matters were listed for hearing on 11.10.2018. On that date Learned Counsel for the Appellants stated that on the same issue nineteen more appeals are pending before the Tribunal. Accordingly all the nineteen appeals as detailed below in table 2, were also listed simultaneously and all the appeals heard together on 16.10.2018. Table 2 Appeals pointed out by the Counsel to be on same issue and listed for simultaneous hearing on 16.10.2018 Appeal No Appellant OIA Date Duty 'Rs Penalty 'Rs E/959/2011 Apollo Soyuz Electricals, Mumbai 20.04.11 474792 474792 E/1299/2011 Perfect Auto Products, Nashik 29.06.11 241140 241140 E/13/2012 Shripad Enterprises, Mumbai 28.09.11 825883 825883 E/14/2012 L & T Shripad 363000 E/15/2012 Aksai Controls,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee. In this case the additional consideration in form of fee supply of drawings and design was required to be added to the transaction value for determining the assessable value for payment of Central Excise duty g. Thus appellants were require to show cause why the value of said designs and drawings received free of cost from M/s L & T should not be added to the transaction value for determination of the assessable value of the goods manufactured and supplied as per the said designs and drawings. h. Accordingly appellants were required to show cause why the Central Excise duty short paid for the reason of non inclusion of the money value of designs and drawings should not be demanded from them by invoking extended period of limitation as provided for by the proviso to Section 11A (1). Penalty under Section 11AC was proposed and interest under section 11Ab also demanded. 2.2 The show cause notices have been adjudicated confirming the demand and interest. Penalties have also been imposed under Section 11AC. 2.3 Against the order of the adjudicating authority appellants had filed appeals to the Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the finished goods cleared on payment of duty. iii. He relied upon the various case laws to argue that the money value of the drawing and design supplied free of cost is required to be added to the assessable value. {Thermax Babcock and Wilcox Ltd. [2017-TIOL-4390-CESTAT-MUM-LB], Mutha Engineering Pvt Ltd {2008-TIOL-735-CESTATMUM], Macawber Beekay Ltd {2008-TIOL-2704- CESTAT-DEL], SWIL Ltd [2001 (128) ELT 510 (TCal)] iv. On issue of revenue neutrality and limitation he relied on decision of larger bench in case of Jai Yushin [2000 (119) ELT 718 (T-LB)] and decision in case of Hanuman Sahakari Dudh Vyvasaik Krushi Purak Seva Sanstha 2014 (309) ELT 273 (T-MUM)]. He also relied upon the decisions in case of Dharampal Prem Chand Ltd. [2011 (265) ELT 81 (T-Del)], MIDCO Ltd {2009 (247) ELT 441 (T-Ahd)], Baba Asia Ltd [2011 (267) ELT 115 (T-Del)], Hero Honda Motors Ltd {2011 (273) ELT 89 (T-Del)] v. On the issue of claim of admissibility of exemption under Notification No 214/86-CE he stated that just availability of option or a scheme do not justify clearance of goods on short payment of duty. Once the appellants have availed the option to pay the duty, then they have no optio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods being valued and aggregated accordingly, namely : - (i) value of materials, components, parts and similar items relatable to such goods; (ii) value of tools, dies, moulds, drawings, blue prints, technical maps and charts and similar items used in the production of such goods; (iii) value of material consumed, including packaging materials, in the production of such goods; (iv) value of engineering, development, art work, design work and plans and sketches undertaken elsewhere than in the factory of production and necessary for the production of such goods. 4.6 The rule 5 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 which reads as follows was under consideration before in the decisions rendered for period of dispute before 1.07.2000. "Rule 5 Where the excisable goods are sold in the circumstances specified in clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 4 of the Act except the circumstance where the price is not the sole consideration for sale, the value of such goods shall be based on the aggregate the aggregate of such price and the amount of money value of any additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he product in question without having the designs and drawing before them. As such, as held by the Larger Bench, it cannot be held in the circumstances that the price was the sole consideration so as to adhere to the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) and not to invoke Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. Accordingly, no merits are found in the said contentions of the appellants also. 7However, we find that the appellants in their proceeding before the Commissioner (Appeals), have taken a specific stand that the total value of the drawing purchased by their customer from M/s. Proll & Lohmann, has been taken into consideration, which are drawings for the entire Lead Quenching Line. The Bath in question manufactured by the appellants, is only the component of the said Line. Further it is submitted that an order supplied for three numbers of Lead Annealing Bath were placed upon them whereas they have only manufactured and supplied one number. As such, it has been argued that the said designs and drawings can be further used for the manufacture of remaining number of Lead Annealing Bath. We agree with the above contentions of the ld. advocate. The value of the drawings has to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eration the supply of the mould by the customer. In other words, had the mould not been supplied by the customer, appellant could not have agreed to the price of the finished goods at the price as is evidenced by the contract entered into between them. So, the price of the finished goods fixed in the contract between the parties can safely be taken as not the sole consideration for the sale of the finished product. The other consideration is the value attributable to the use of the mould. In this view of the matter, we are not in a position to agree with the conclusions arrived at by West Zonal Bench, Mumbai in the three decisions referred to earlier. With respect we approve the decision rendered by this Tribunal in Flex Industries Ltd. case (supra)." This decision of larger Bench was considered and approved to by Bombay High Court in case of Bright Brothers {2015 (322) ELT 110 (Bom)] "9. Paragraph 47 of the Order-in-Original indicates as to how there were two orders of the Tribunal and which apparently took conflicting views. Eventually, the matter was resolved by a Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mutual Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2000 (1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r we are not in position to agree with said contention of the appellants because in the present case the transactions between the appellants and buyer of the goods was on principal to principal basis and involved sale and purchase of the goods. In fact appellants were manufacturing the goods as per the requirement of their customer and selling to them. The facts recorded by the Apex Court in case of International Auto [2005 (183) ELT 239 (SC)] are as follows: "The appellant is a job worker manufacturing floor plates assemblies for TELCO. These floor plate assemblies are used by TELCO in the manufacture of excavators. TELCO made available several inputs to the appellant for the purpose of manufacture of the assemblies on which credit had been taken by TELCO. The appellant used TELCO's inputs as well as its own inputs in manufacturing the assemblies. It cleared the assemblies from its factories upon payment of excise duty on the completed floor plate assemblies by including the value of only the inputs put in by the appellant and adding thereto its service charges." 5.2 From the facts as in the present case, appellants are undertaking manufacture of the goods as per the drawing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pointed out by the DR, the question of revenue neutrality does not arise in case of claim of cenvat credit, albeit, the appellants will have to follow the required procedure in that regard." 5.3 In case of Baba Asia [2011 (267) ELT 115 (T-Del)] pleqa of revenue neutrality was again rejected stating "19. As regards the last point for consideration, the Departmental Representative is justified in contending that each and every situation cannot be termed as a revenue neutral situation. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. He is also justified in contending that failure on the part of an assessee to clear the duty in the time when it becomes due and payable results not only in the loss relating to principal amount of duty but also to interest which may accrue on such duty amount. Being so if the duty was required to be cleared on January 2008, on account of litigation, the payment was delayed merely because, on that day, the appellant had some credit available in his account, if sought to be utilised in 2010, certainly in such situation it cannot be said that the relief would be of a revenue neutral situation." 5.4 In case of Dharampal Prem Chand Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rages bases/concentrates supplied by them to the bottlers, who, in turn, were using the same as raw material in the manufacture of beverages. Hon'ble Supreme Court observing that the excise duty payable on the beverages bases/concentrates and Modvat credit availed being identical, the consequences of payment of excise duty, after availing Modvat credit was revenue neutral and accordingly the revenue's appeal was dismissed. 7.5 In none of the above judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down a general principle that in a revenue neutral situation an assessee is not required to pay the duty. Dismissing Department's SLP on the ground that charging duty on an intermediate product whose Cenvat credit is available to the assessee, is revenue neutral, does not amount to laying down a general principle in this regard. There is no such provision in the Central Excise Act that in respect of goods cleared for captive consumption when the Cenvat credit of duty paid on such goods is available, no duty is required to be paid in such cases. Keeping in view the aspect of revenue neutrality, the Central Government by exemption Notification No. 67/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95 issued under Section 5A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....light of the Supreme Court decision in Ujagar Prints case. Further, the appellants themselves had admitted to the short payment by debiting the amount of duty subsequently after adding cost of the free components in the assessable value. In view of this, the contention of the appellants that the price charged by them from MUL was the genuine price cannot be accepted as it was clear that the cost of some of the inputs used in the manufacture of their goods viz., the components received from MUL had not been included in the assessable value and the goods had been cleared and sold to MUL on that basis. The plea of the appellants that they had not received any additional consideration as stated by them in their declaration cannot also be accepted in the admitted facts of the case where the components were supplied free of cost from MUL and the appellants had sold the said components back to MUL after carrying out manufacturing processes. The intention to evade duty is clearly established in view of the fact that there was substantial difference between the actual duty paid by the appellants at the time of clearances of the final products without including the cost of the free component....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns were available to the assessee, one of paying the duty at the time of clearance of the goods and the other, clearing the excisable goods without payment of duty either under some Exemption Notification or under some other legal provision. It was in such circumstances that the Tribunal had taken the view that when the option of clearing the goods without payment of duty was simultaneously available to the assessee, the non-paymert/short payment was not attributable to any intention to evade payment of duty. In the other seven cases viz., cases against Sl. No. 1,3,5,9,10,11 and 12 in the list of cases mentioned in Para 9 above, the option of availing Modvat credit was available to the assessee even though he was not availing of it. In the present case, the claim of the appellants that duty free clearance under Notfn. No. 214/86 was concurrently available to them and therefore no intention to evade duty payment can be inferred does not appear to merit acceptance since it is not in dispute that the appellants were admittedly availing of modvat credit under Rule 57A and Rule 57Q. There is also no evidence on record to show that MUL had given any undertaking under Para 2 of Notfn. No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11AC, as has been stated above the ingredients for invoking the said provision are in par materia with the ingredients to proviso to Section 11A(1). Having regard to the view we have taken above, where no legal infirmity in invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) is shown to exist, there will also be no infirmity in invoking of penal provision under Section 11AC. 13.In the light of the above discussion, we answer the reference as under: (a) Revenue neutrality being a question of fact, the same is to be established in the facts of each case and not merely by showing the availability of an alternate scheme; (b) Where the scheme opted for by the assessee is found to have been misused (in contradistinction to mere deviation or failure to observe all the conditions) the existence of an alternate scheme would not be an acceptable defence; (c) With particular reference to Modvat scheme (which has occasioned this reference) it has to be shown that the Revenue neutral situation comes about in relation to the credit available to the assessee himself and not by way of availability of credit to the buyer of the assessee's manufactured goods; (d) We express our opinion in favour ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(c) thereof, whereas clauses (a), (b) and (d) do not appear to have been taken notice of or considered by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and order. A bare reading of the order of the Tribunal makes the position crystal clear that there is no proper discussion of all the factual issues arising for consideration." 5.7 In case of Thermax Babcock and Wilcox Ltd. [2017-TIOL-4390-CESTAT-MUM-LB] larger bench of Tribunal in similar manner distinguished the case of Apex Court in case of International Auto, supra and has held as follows: "7.1 The term manufacture is defined under Section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act which includes any process (i) Incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product ; and (ii) which is specified in relation to any goods in the Section or Chapter notes of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as amounting to manufacture; or (iii) which, in relation to the goods specified in the Third Schedule, involves packing or repacking of such goods in a unit container or labeling or re-labelling of containers including the declaration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellants plea was and their contention is that the job-worked goods were exempted from duty on the clearance thereof at the job-workers end, by virtue of Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and 2002 relying upon Rule 4 (6) of the said Rules, appellant claimed that the Principal manufacturer can also remove the goods from the job-worker premises either on payment of duty or for export, under Bond. The Rule 4 (5) (a) and Rule 4 (6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and 2002 relied upon by the Appellant in support of their contention read as under : Rule 4(5)(a) - The CENVAT credit on inputs shall be allowed even if any inputs as such or after being partially processed are sent to a job worker for further processing, testing, repairing, re-conditioning or any other purpose, and it is established from the records, challans or memos or any other document produced by the assessee taking the CENVAT credit that the goods are received back in the factory within one hundred and eighty days, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit attributable to the inputs or capital goods by debiting the CENVAT credit or otherwise, but the manufacturer can take the CENVAT cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as the conditions under which cenvat credit can be allowed to a principal manufacturer and it is not a statutory provision to grant exemption from payment of duty to the manufacturer and in the present case, the job worker. 7.6 The jobworker being the manufacturer of goods is liable to pay duty on goods manufactured by him albeit on jobwork. The ownership of the goods is immaterial for the purpose of levy of duty and thus any person who has undertaken the activity of manufacture is liable to pay duty. In order to save the jobworker from payment of duty the Principal manufacture has to own the liability to pay such duty. It is only by virtue of the Notification No. 214/86 CE dt. 25.03.1986 that the liability of the jobworker to pay duty is transferred to the Principal manufacturer who undertakes to pay duty. 7.7 The intention of enactment of Notification(supra) was to shift the liability of payment of duty from jobworker to the Principal manufacturer under certain conditions as provided in the said notification. There is no blanket machinery provisions in the central excise law under which the liability to pay duty is transferred from the job work manufacturer to another pers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) further use in the manufacture of the final product; or (ii) removing after payment of duty for home consumption; or (iii) removing the same without payment of duty under bond for export. Since the rule provided for exemption where the Principal Manufacturer pays duty on finished goods and therefore it was held that no duty is liable to be paid by the Jobworker. The jobworker was exempted from payment of duty in case where the goods arising out of job work were to be used by the Principal manufacturer either in the manufacture of goods on which duty was paid by him or were to be cleared as such on payment of duty. The said situation given in Rule(supra) cannot be equated with the present situation as Rule 4 (5) (a) not being concerned with payment of duty but only limited to sending of cenvated inputs to the jobworker. 7.10 In the present case the fact remains is that neither the goods after jobwork were cleared as such on payment of duty nor were used in manufacture of dutiable final products by the Principal manufacturer. Hence the duty liability would be on the real manufacturer of goods i.e the Jobworker. Since the Principal manufacturer pays the duty on the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... far as the duty liability of a job worker in terms of Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is concerned, it is settled upto the level of Supreme Court that the job worker was not required to pay duty. We have reproduced above the provisions of Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the Provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and have carefully perused the same. The language in both these Rules gives no scope to infer that if the job worker was not required to pay duty in terms of Rule 57F(4) it could be required to pay duty in terms of Rule 4(5)(a) because the conditions of Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 were stringent compared to the conditions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules inasmuch as Rule 57F(4) categorically required the principal manufacturer to use the goods received from the job worker for further use in the manufacture of the final product or removing after payment of duty for home consumption or removing the same without payment of duty for export while Rule 4(5)(a) does not say so expressly though it is implicit therein. Thus, we are of the view that for the purpose of dutibility at the hands of the job worker, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ternational Auto Ltd. vs. CCE, Bihar 2005 (183) ELT 293 (SC) = 2005-TIOL-81-SC-CX-LB. In the said case the dispute related to valuation of goods for the purpose of levy of duty at the Jobworkers end. The controversy was not related to liability of duty of job worker. It is undisputed in the present case that the Principal manufacturer was not paying duty on removal of final products and had also not opted to avail the benefit of Notification No.214/86-CE Hence the liability of is on the manufacturer of intermediate product, i.e. job worker in the present case. 7.15 The reliance placed upon the Circular No. 306/22/97/ - CX dt. 20.03.1997 is also misplaced since the circular was with reference to the situation upon eligibility of the jobworker to claim credit where no duty was paid by them. However the facts of the present case are different as it deals with the situation as to who should be liable to pay duty when the Principal manufacture is not discharging duty either on jobwork goods or on final products in which such jobwork goods are consumed. In such case the responsibility lies the Jobworker who is the ultimate manufacturer of the goods to discharge the excise duty. 7.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evidence has been brought on record by the Appellants to prove that the supplier of the raw-material had supplied the materials to them under the provisions of Notification No. 214/86. In view of absence of any material to this effect, it is not open to the Appellants to claim that they were working under the provisions of Notification No. 214/86. The copies of challans brought on record by the Appellants only refer to the movement of excisable goods under rule 57F(2). In view of this, the reliance placed by the Appellants on the observation of the Tribunal in respect of Notification 214/86 in the remand order is not tenable. We also observe that the Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter in the light of the observations and also according to the law. Notification No. 214/86 nowhere provides that the supplier of the raw material will be liable to pay the duty on the goods manufactured as a job work. Para 2 of the Notification No. 214/86 speaks of the liability of the supplier for discharging the duty leviable on the finished products and not on the goods manufactured on job work basis. The Adjudicating authority has rightly relied upon the decision in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acturer is liable to duty on the job worked goods. 8. As per above discussion, we hold that the Jobworker M/s Thermax being manufacturer of excisable goods is liable to pay duty on the intermediate goods manufactured by him on jobwork basis which supplied to their principal M/s Thermax Babcock. The question referred to this larger bench is answered accordingly. Registry is directed to place the appeals before the referral bench for appropriate orders." 5.5 In view of the decisions of larger bench in the case of Jay Yushin and Thermax Babcock and Wilcox Ltd we do not find any merits in the plea of the appellants in respect of availability of alternate scheme or limitation. 6.1 Since appellants have short paid the Central Excise duty, interest is demandable from them under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Issue with regards to statutory levy of interest is no longer res integra. Bombay High Court has in case of Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Padmashri V.V. Patil Sahakari [2007 (215) ELT 23 Bom] has held as follows: "10. So far as interest Under Section 11AB is concerned, on reference to text of Section 11AB, it is evident that there is no discretion regard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deliberate deception by the assessee with the intent to evade duty by adopting any of the means mentioned in the section. 20. At this stage, we need to examine the recent decision of this Court in Dharamendra Textile (supra). In almost every case relating to penalty, the decision is referred to on behalf of the Revenue as if it laid down that in every case of non-payment or short payment of duty the penalty clause would automatically get attracted and the authority had no discretion in the matter. One of us (Aftab Alam, J.) was a party to the decision in Dharamendra Textile and we see no reason to understand or read that decision in that manner. In Dharamendra Textile the court framed the issues before it, in paragraph 2 of the decision, as follows : "2. A Division Bench of this Court has referred the controversy involved in these appeals to a larger Bench doubting the correctness of the view expressed in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. [2007 (8) SCALE 304]. The question which arises for determination in all these appeals is whether Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the "Act') inserted by Finance Act, 1996 with the inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payment of duty regardless of the conditions expressly mentioned in the section for its application. 22. There is another very strong reason for holding that Dharamendra Textile could not have interpreted Section 11AC in the manner as suggested because in that case that was not even the stand of the revenue. In paragraph 5 of the decision the court noted the submission made on behalf of the revenue as follows : "5. Mr. Chandrashekharan, Additional Solicitor General submitted that in Rules 96ZQ and 96ZO there is no reference to any mens rea as in section 11AC where mens rea is prescribed statutorily. This is clear from the extended period of limitation permissible under Section 11A of the Act. It is in essence submitted that the penalty is for statutory offence. It is pointed out that the proviso to Section 11A deals with the time for initiation of action. Section 11AC is only a mechanism for computation and the quantum of penalty. It is stated that the consequences of fraud etc. relate to the extended period of limitation and the onus is on the revenue to establish that the extended period of limitation is applicable. Once that hurdle is crossed by the revenue, the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellants are working on principal to principal basis and have sold their final products on payment of duty on the assessable value arrived at on transaction basis, have supplied drawings and designs to the appellants free of cost and the value of said designs is required to be added in the assessable value of the final product. The demands stand confirmed against the assessee by invoking the longer period of limitation. 12. There are primarily three issues involved in the present appeals. The first as to whether the documents supplied by the principal manufacturers are in the shape of drawings and designs or the same are merely instruction sheets providing guidance to the appellants as to how the final products are to be manufactured. Secondly whether the cost of the same is required to be added in the assessable value of the goods, when the same have been sold on transaction value. Further as to whether the entire exercise is revenue neutral, in which case the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked against the appellants. 13. On going through the order proposed by learned Member(Technical), I find that copies of the alleged drawings and designs supplied by the custo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....various decisions of the Tribunal, High Courts as also of Hon'ble Supreme Court laying down that the value of the same would not be added in the value of the final product. My learned Brother while referring to said decisions have not disputed the said fact, but has observed that all the said decisions were rendered under the provisions of section 4, which were holding the field prior to 01.07.2000. The same would not be applicable under the amended provisions of section 4. However, apart from the fact that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Grasim Industries [2018 (360) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.)] has observed that there is virtually no difference between the erstwhile provisions of section 4 and the amended provisions of section 4 w.e.f. 01.07.2000, I note that the new section 4 refers to the assessable value as the transaction value entered into between the manufacturer and their customers. Admittedly the appellants have paid duty on the transaction value, which reflected the correct value of the goods, as agreed upon by both the sides. The provisions of rule 6 of the new Valuation Rules, referred to by learned Brother, according to me, are not applicable inasmuch as there is no add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y their customers as credit. As such if the appellants had paid the extra duty, which is now being confirmed against them, their customers would have taken the Cenvat credit of the same, which they were in a position to utilize for further payment of duty on their final product. As such it is seen that the duty paid by the appellant being available is a credit to their principal manufacturers, the entire exercise has to be held as revenue neutral situation. The contention of the Revenue that in such a scenario no credit of duty not paid or less paid would be available is not appreciable. The revenue neutral situation has to be examined in the peculiar facts and circumstances of a particular case. Admittedly in a case of clandestine removal or mala fide evasion of duty, the plea of revenue neutrality would not be acceptable. But in a given case where the goods were being cleared on payment of duty of Rs.X and if such duty paid is being availed as a credit by the customers, then the Revenue's contention that the duty paid should have been Rs.X + 1/-, there cannot be any denial of the fact that the said Rs.X +1/- would be available as a credit to the customer. As such I observe that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pearing in section 11A, proviso has to be interpreted strictly because it has been used in the company of strong words as fraud, collusion or willful default. Mere omission to disclose the correct information is not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to escape from payment of duty. Examining in the light of the above declared law, can it be said in the present case that there was any suppression on the part of the assessee so as to justifiably invoke the longer period of limitation. When it already stands observed that the appellant has not gained anything, by paying less amount of duty (if presumed) and nothing has moneytarily gone into their pocket, it cannot be said that there was any mala fide intention on their part so as to evade payment of duty. In the absence of any positive evidence to the contrary, produced by the Revenue, upon whom the onus lies, the invocation of extended period of limitation is neither justified nor warranted. As such the confirmation of demands beyond the period of limitation or the imposition of penalties upon the assesses are not justified. The same are accordingly set aside. In a nutshell the impugned orders are set aside and appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Drg-1 Drg-2 General arrangement drawing Master Bill of material & General Notes Special Instructions Drg-3 Drg-4 Equipment location drawing Drg-5 Scheme drawing Drg-6 Module Layouts Drg-7 Bus bar layout Drg-8 Typical Assembly Instructions drawing This gives the entire switchboard view This gives bill of material & technical requirements This highlights the specific requirements of the customer This gives the layout of components on door & inside the switchboard This gives wiring connections details This gives components layouts in the modules & doors This gives Bus bar arrangement of all cubicles in the switchboard This gives basic assembly instructions Document 2 PWO NO. 3035711430 SWITCHBOARDS SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS 24 DRN BY TPP CHD BY TPP AKA TPP AKA TPP APP BY HAD HAD HAD REV. 0 1 2 DATE DATE: 20.10.16 DATE: 17.11.16 22.02.17 1) Std cable clamp bracket will be provided in cable alley for Cable clamping 2) All cutouts through which wires are being taken are to be provided with gasket/grommet at the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IS THE PROPERTY OF LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED AND MUST NOT BE COPIED OR LENT WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION IN WRITING LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED, ENGINEERS, MUMBAI SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS SCW1331 SHEET 1 OF 3 2 REV Document 3 PWO NO. 3035711430 25 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS SWITCHBOARDS DRN BY TPP CHD BY TPP AKA TPP AKA TPP APP BY HAD HAD HAD REV. 0 1 2 DATE DATE: 20.10.16 DATE: 17.11.16 22.02.17 13) In I/C-B/C shall be provided with class 0.2metering ct with class 0.2 energy meter(Premier 300) for following boards SYWF859 415V Station PMCC - 1 SYWF860 415V Station PMCC - 2 SYWE842 415V RW Intake PMCC SYWE843 415V RWPH PMCC SYWF861 415V FW & Clarifire PMCC SYWF862 415V DMPT PMCC SYWE845 415V CW PMCC SYWE846 415V FO PMCC SYWE847 415V H2 Gen PMCC SYWF863 415V Unit PMCC 3A SYWF864 415V Unit PMCC 3B SYWF866 415V Unit PMCC 4A SYWF867 415V Unit PMCC 4B 14) We have not provided SUP panel for fixed feeder-630 A with cable size 1:1CX400 sq. mm. confirm By VP- CDG. 15) Link sizes For 3200A as follows, Feeder rating 32....