TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 1001
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... He submits that the appellant M/s. Sree Lakshmi Industrial Forge and Engineers Ltd. admittedly not approached this Tribunal for change of cause title as well as the change of address. He submits that it was a mistake on their part in not approaching the Tribunal resulting to non-receipt of the intimation of hearing, when the appeal was taken up by this Tribunal in the year 2019. 3. In support of the second miscellaneous application, he submits that the cause title of the appellant needs to be changed in view of the certificate enclosed with miscellaneous application issued by the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka. 4. Opposing the applications, the learned AR for the Revenue vehemently argued that the appellant has been negligent in pursuing the matter before this Tribunal. Even though the appeal was filed in the year 2009, however, they have not thereafter pursued the appeal before this forum. He submits that even after merger of the appellant-company with M/s. Kems Forgings Limited w.e.f. 2011, no compliance has been made by intimating the said merger to the Tribunal thereby replacing the new address with the existing one. He submits that since it is a question of negligence o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, hence not applicable. Considering the submissions of the appellant supported by affidavit filed by the Managing Director of the company, in the interest of justice, the miscellaneous application seeking restoration of the appeal dismissed earlier for non-prosecution vide order dt. 20.08.2019 is allowed and the said order is recalled and appeal is restored to its original number. Also, the miscellaneous application seeking change of cause title from M/s. Sree Lakshmi Forge & Engineers Ltd., to M/s. Kems Forgings Ltd. on the basis of the certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies dated 14.07.2011 is allowed and the appellant's cause title is changed from M/s. Sree Lakshmi Forge & Engineers Ltd., to M/s. Kems Forgings Ltd. Registry is directed to make necessary changes regarding cause title and address in the records as well as database. 8. The miscellaneous applications are disposed of accordingly. 9. Now, coming to the merit of the appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No.44/2009-CE dt. 30/03/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore, the facts of the case are that the appellants had manufactured dies, jigs and fixtures valued at Rs.26,50,505/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also from regular customers, they do not recover any charges and the appellant themselves bear the said cost. Thus, there is no additional consideration received from the buyers. In support, he has referred to the judgment of the Tribunal in the cases of Flex Industries Vs. CCE [1997 (91) ELT 120 (T) and Mutual Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE [2000(117) ELT 578 (T-LB)]. Further he has submitted that the tools / dies cost must be amortised over the life period and duty cannot be recovered by adding the total cost of the dies to the transaction value. He has submitted that the dies blocks are their own capital asset; hence it is subjected to depreciation of capital asset. He has submitted that since the impressions/inserts are manufactured within the factory and used in the manufacture of forgings, exemption from duty is available under Notification No.67/95-CE dt. 16.03.1995. It is his contention that thus the remand order by the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard for verification of documents and redetermination of assessable value including amortised cost of dies is not correct. 10.2. Further the learned consultant has submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly rema....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....course of manufacture of forgings, whose cost is borne by them; therefore the direction of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to calculate the amortised cost of dies/blocks and redetermine the assessable value is incorrect. Also, the grievance of the appellant is that even though they have been claiming through evidences before the authorities below that the die blocks belong to them and the die impression/inserts got exhausted but the same was not considered. Hence, the order of the lower authorities is bad in law. 14. We find force in the contention of the learned Consultant for the appellant. Initially, in the demand notice, the entire cost of the dies / jig fixtures proposed to be included assuming that the same have been used in the manufacture of forgings and its cost has been recovered from the customers. However, no evidence has been placed in this regard in spite of two rounds of litigation before the adjudicating authority. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has now erred in remanding the matter to examine the issue of inclusion of the amortised cost of dies in the value of the forgings without analysing the evidence on the allegation of receipt of additional cost of the....