R.H. INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K . Sreedharan, J. (President) 1. Issues raised in these two appeals are identical. So we consider it advantage to dispose of them by this common order. For a proper understanding of the issues raised we refer to the facts in appeal 1798/98 in detail. Appellant therein M/s. R.H. Industries is the manufacturer of Axle Beam Assembly which is a component part of Tractors manufactured by Punjab Tractors Ltd. While carrying out this job work of manufacturing Axle Beam Assembly they did not include the value of the Axle Beam Bushes supplied free of cost by Punjab Tractors Ltd. Therefore, on the allegation that appellant wilfully suppressed the value of Axle Beam Bushes while paying duty on the Axle Beam Assembly, show cause notice dated 1 -2 -1995 was issued calling upon the appellant why sum of Rs. 3,16,913.05 should not be realised as the amount of duty evaded for the period from November, 1990 to July, 1995. Appellant herein objected to the show cause notice on many counts including the plea of limitation. The Adjudicating Authority by order in Original No. 95 CE ADC 97, dated 29 -8 -1997 confirmed the demand. Aggrieved by that decision R.H. Industries preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner by an Order -in -Appeal No. C/1061/CE/APPL/CHG/97, dated 25 -3 -1998 dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal before us.

(2.) WE heard Counsel representing the appellant and the ld. D.R. in detail. We perused the records.

(3.) R .H. Industries were manufacturing Axle Beam Assembly which is a component part of Tractors manufactured by Punjab Tractors Ltd. Axle Beam Bushes which were part of Assembly, were supplied to the appellant by Punjab Tractors Ltd., free of cost. While carrying out the manufacturing process of making Axle Beam Assembly those bushes were utilized. Value of those bushes were not included in the assessable value of Axle Beam Assembly. Consequently, R.H. Industries were showing a lesser value for the Assembly manufactured by them and a lesser duty was being paid. This method adopted by the appellant cannot be sustained, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.) and Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 671 (S.C.).