TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (10) TMI 99
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the petitioner no. 1 will he paid Rs. 135 per piece inclusive of all labour and material excepting for malleable cast iron inserts and fastenings, which were to be supplied free by the said Railway Board. Clause 6.3 of the aforesaid contract specifically stated that any taxes and duties leviable on the said concrete sleepers from time to time was to be, and is to the said Railway Board's Account. In terms of clause 6.4 of the said contract, the malleable inserts were to be supplied free of cost to the petitioner no. 1. 2. On 1st August, 1981, the respondent no. 2, Superintendent, Customs and Central Excise, Mathura, besides other things, intimated petitioner no. 1 that no documents have been shown so as to know the value of the inser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng information regarding the value of inserts. 3. From the material which has been filed in this writ petition, it appears that throughout the excise department was pressing the petitioner to disclose the value of inserts and the petitioner was taking the plea that the value of inserts could not be disclosed as despite persistent requests the Railways has not supplied the aforesaid information. It was only on 10th October, 1984 that the General Manager of petitioner no. 1 intimated the Superintendent, Central Excise that the General Manager (Engineering), Northern Railways by his letter, dated 15th September, 1984 has intimated that the value of inserts being used was Rs. 11.90 paise. However, it appears that before the petitioner no. 1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner, the limitation for issuing such a show cause notice is six months from the relevant date, i.e., the date on which the excise duty was payable under Section 11-A(i) of the Act. We are unable to accept the aforesaid argument as a bare perusal of the show cause notice, dated 16th July, 1985 shows that jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act has been assumed as according to the excise department the petitioners were being regularly requested to supply the cost of M.C.I. inserts since July, 1981 to which they have failed and that they have wilfully suppressed the value of the inserts so as to evade the payment of duty. A bare perusal of proviso to Section 11-A of the Act makes it clear that in case the duty of excise has not been levied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als Limited v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad and Another decided on 26th October, 1984-1985 (20) E.L.T. 60 (AP) = [1985] 4 ECC 165 (AP). Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on this question at some length and after perusing the decision given by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Mysore Structurals Limited 1985 (20) E.L.T. 60 (AP) = [1985] 4 ECC 165 (AP) (supra). We are of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force and we respectfully differ from the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Mysore Structurals Limited 1985 (20) ELT 60 (AP) = [1985] 4 ECC 165 (AP) (supra). 6. There is no dispute that what is being sold t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the sleepers with inserts and fasteners would have included the price of those inserts and fasteners while selling the goods to the railways. The effect would be to set-off the price which the petitioner would have paid for obtaining the inserts and fasteners. At best it could be said to be an arrangement between the manufacturer and the supplied that in case the purchaser supplies some material essential for the finished goods without charging any price on the assurance that the same will be utilised in the finished product and supplied to the purchaser, in such a case the manufacturer will not be entitled to include the price of that item which has been supplied free of cost on the undertaking that the same would be utilised in finished ....