TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (12) TMI 129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., A.K. Srivastava, CS & R.S Bajaj, CA, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. These 85 Appeals filed by the Department and 29 Cross-Objections filed by the Respondents have been taken up together for hearing and disposal, which relate to two impugned Orders-in-Appeal passed by the lower Appellate Authority and deal with a common issue. 3. We have heard the learned Advocates and Authorised Representatives appearing for all concerned, as listed above. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Tata Motors (earlier known as M/s. TELCO) have got various components of chassis and motor vehicles manufactured by a number of vendors who are the Respondents in this case. The vendors have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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. It is seen from the extract of Rule 6, Explanation 1, as extracted above, that value of drawings as specified under Clause (ii) and value of engineering, development, art work, design work etc. as specified in Clause (iv) are includible in the value of excisable goods when these a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to interfere and dismiss the appeal." 6. From the above Order, we find that it relies on an unreported decision in the case of CCE v. Bharat Forge in Appeal No. E/776/95-A. Unfortunately, neither the date of the Order relied upon is mentioned nor any citation is available to lay our hand on the said earlier Order. We also note, in passing, that the Tribunal appears to have decided Appeal No. E/776/95-A prior to deciding the Appeal No. E/159/95-A, which appears to be somewhat strange apart from the fact that the decision in Appeal No. E/776/95-A has not even been extracted in the order from which one could have gathered the ratio of the said decision. In any case, since this is a decision rendered on 25-8-2000, it definitely relates to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imensions of the impugned components as being made out by some of the Respondents. It is obvious that the drawing contains technical details representing design of an impugned component. When asked, the learned Company Secretary, Shri A.K. Srivastava representing some of the Respondents expressed his inability to transcribe the drawing into dimensions in textual form, but stated that he would have to take help of a technical person to understand the same. Hence, the argument that the impugned drawings were mere transcriptions of the dimensions of the component parts, as argued before the lower Appellate Authority and before us, cannot be accepted. 9. It is also submitted on behalf of the Respondents that the vendors were not even aware o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... J.A. Khan and K.P. Singh appearing for the Department have argued that it was in the knowledge of M/s. Tata Motors and their vendors that expenditure has been made towards the drawings and designs of the components and they should have disclosed the same to the Departmental Authorities. Hence, they support the Order of the Original Authority and the grounds of Appeals advanced by the Department that there has been suppression and therefore, the extended period of time-limit of 5 years is applicable as well as the Respondents are required/to be visited with penalty and interest. 11. After careful consideration of the case records as well as the submissions from both sides, we note that the cited decision of the Tribunal though under the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by M/s. Tata Motors, is includible in the assessable value of the components, we hold that the demand for the same can only be sustained for the normal period of limitation. In view of the fact that the show cause notices have been issued on various dates, the matter requires to be sent back to the Original Authority to calculate the additional duty amount for the normal period in each case. Since we have held that there is no suppression, misstatement etc., the additional duty to be paid by the Respondent-Vendors would also be admissible for taking credit by M/s. Tata Motors to whom the components have been supplied. As we have ordered confirmation of the demands for the normal period holding that the escapement of duty has arisen on ac....