TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 521
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dingly the matter will require fresh computation to re-look but did not impose any penalty and demand interest on the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of E-bike and parts thereof falling under heading 8711 & 8714 respectively of Central Excise Tariff act, 1985. They imported E-Bikes parts & E-bike in CKD condition falling under heading 8714 & 8711 of Central Excise Tariff Act respectively. The E-Bikes were chargeable to duty as per section 4 of Central Excise Act and E-Bike parts on MRP basis as per section 4A of Central Excise Act. A show cause notice dated 19.11.2010 was issued to the appellant alleging that appellant imported E-Bike parts and E-Bikes in CKD condition. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g and the processes undertaken does not amount to manufacture as per section 2(f) of Central Excise Act being no new/distinct product came into existence. Moreover, clearance of E-bike imported in CKD condition were not reflected in ER-1 return as there were no manufacturing activity involved. The demand of automobile cess again are incorrect as the same have already been discharged at the time of importation of E-Bike in CKD condition. The classification at the time of importation and at the time of clearance for home consumption are same. After following the due process, the additional commissioner vide his order dated 30.05.2011 demanded the automobile cess of Rs. 13,15,692/- under section 11A by invoking the extended period of limitatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferred in para 1 of the show cause notice is same that reflected in ER-1 return filed during relevant period. He further submits that the details regarding E-Bike i.e. sub-heading quantity cleared duty paid etc. were reflected in ER-1 returns submitted to the department periodically and no objection regarding non deposit of automobile cess was raised. He further submitted that the entire demand is time barred and the department has confirmed the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation whereas the appellant has not suppressed any facts from the department with intent to evade payment of automobile cess. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions as held under: (i) Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mal....