TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....02.2009. 2. The facts leading to the present appeals are summarized below:- a) M/s. Tata Motors Limited ('TML'), Jamshedpur are engaged in the manufacture of Motor Vehicles. One of the components required for the manufacture of motor vehicles is its transmission gear. The Division of TML, Jamshedpur manufacturing transmission gears was converted into a subsidiary of TML with the name of H.V. Transmission Ltd.('HVTL') with effect from 31.03.2000. HVTL continued to manufacture transmission gears and supply its entire manufacture to TML. Part of the goods supplied were consumed by TML in the manufacture of motor vehicles. The rest of the supply was made to the spare parts division of TML. b) After formation of HV....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2006. When the said order was challenged before the CESTAT, in the first round of litigation, the Tribunal vide his order dated 16.01.2008 and 14.6.2007, remanded the matter for denovo decision. The impugned order was passed in the denovo proceedings. 3. The Adjudicating Authority upheld the proposal for demand of differential duty as proposed in the Show Cause Notice. In addition, he held that M/s. TML will not be entitled to avail Cenvat Credit of about Rs. 55 lakhs paid by HVTL by issue of supplementary invoices. This order is challenged both by HVTL (against the proposed demand of differential duty) and by M/s. TML (against portion of the order denying the Cenvat credit). Both appeals are taken up for a decision through this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was not justified in disallowing such deduction. (iv) With reference to the denial of Cenvat credit to TML, on the basis of duty paid at the end of HVTL by issue of supplementary invoices, he submits that the Cenvat credit cannot be denied. He submits that any differential duty paid and the supplementary invoice issued prior to 29.08.2000 would also be entitled. A notification No. 51/2000 was issued to permit credit on supplementary invoice in certain cases. (v) The Ld. Advocate also forcefully submitted that the department was not justified at all in issuing the SCN by invoking the extended period of limitation provided under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He submitted that the fact of clearances of goods f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notional profit of 15%. (ii) With reference to the discounts claimed from the spare parts price list, he drew our attention to the findings of Adjudicating Authority in para-17 of the impugned order. In this portion of the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority has observed that HVTL has failed to submit any documentary evidence about the grant of discount and the fact that such discounts were given to the buyers. (iii) In respect of the Modvat credit to TML on the basis of supplementary invoices issued by HVTL, he drew our attention to the finding of Adjudicating Authority in paras 21 to 23 of the order. He has held that the supplementary invoices were issued on 29.12.2000 and 31.10.2001 and during such time the Centra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of goods cleared during the period and quantified and paid differential duty amount to Rs. 55 lakhs. The department, after investigation, disputed such quantification and worked out the demand of Excise duty amounting to Rs. 90.84 lakhs as follows: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (Rs. In Lakhs) 1. Duty demanded u/s 11A - proviso invoked 90.84 2. Amount paid before issue of Show Cause Notice 55.18 3=1-2 Difference 35.66 4 Amount representing 15% notional profit 16.13 5=3-4 Amounting representing discount 19.53 10. After considering the detailed argument from both sides, we are of the view that the dispute may be decided by consideration of the argument of time bar advanced on behalf of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me by TML before the jurisdictional authorities. As such we find no justification for issue of SCN by alleging suppression on the part of HVTL. Since no demand for differential duty survives within the normal period of limitation, the entire differential duty demand raised is liable to be set aside, and we do so. 12. Next we consider the issue of availment of Cenvat Credit by TML on the basis of supplementary invoices issued by HVTL at the time of payment of differential duty. In this regard, there is no dispute that the differential duty has been paid by HVTL and the supplementary invoices issued. The reason cited by the Adjudicating Authority for denying the credit to TML is that the relevant Central Excise Rules did not provide for av....