http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  7122-7124 of 2002

PETITIONER: Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut

RESPONDENT: Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd. & Others

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/04/2008

BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & DALVEER BHANDARI

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7122-7124 OF 2002

                         M/s.Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd., respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as  the  ’respondent’) is a manufacturer of wiring harnesses.  The manufacture is carried out accordi ng  to specific orders of automotive and air conditioning industry, against specific contracts.   In  some cases the appellant received certain component parts of wiring harness, free of charge,   from their buyers. These components were also incorporated in the wiring harness.  In such  cases, the value of the free supply component parts were not added to the price of wiring  harnesses while fixing their assessable value and paying excise duty on them. Appellant  searched the premises of the respondent and came to know that the respondent was not paying  duty on the free supplies received by it from their buyers and thus suppressed the informati on  with the intention to evade payment of duty.         Consequently, a show cause notice was issued proposing to demand duty of Rs.96,01,56 1/-   for the period from March, 1995 to January, 1997 on clearance of wiring harness by the  respondent.  The show cause notice also sought to invoke the extended period of limitation  under Section 11A of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944.  Reply to show cause notice was  also filed.         By his order dated 27th February, 2001, Commissioner confirmed the demanded duty and   also imposed a penalty of the same amount and further penalty of Rs.5 lacs and Rs.7 lacs on  the Managing Director and DGM(Marketing) of the respondent’s company.         Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Commissioner, respondents filed appeal befor e the  Tribunal.  The point on merits was not gone into by the Tribunal but on the point of limitat ion  the case was decided in favour of the assessee.         Counsel for the parties state that on merits the issue involved in the present case  is  concluded against the revenue and in favour of the assessee by a judgment of this Court in t he  case of International Auto Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bihar reported in 2005  (183) ELT 239(SC).         Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and especially in view of th e fact  that the point on merits is concluded against the revenue and in favour of the assessee by a   judgment of this court in the case of  International Auto Ltd.(supra), we dismiss these appe als  filed by the revenue without going into the question of limitation.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

       The Appeals are dismissed accordingly.