ORDER

In C.A.No.8484/2003 The appeal is disposed of as having be come infructuous in terms of the signed order.

Signature Not Verified In C.A.No.1996/2006 Digitally signed by Suman Wadhwa Date: 2015.03.21 13:37:01 IST Reason: Learned counsel for the Revenue states that he has not been given any instructions to appear in this appeal and he is not aware as to whom this appeal is granted fo r arguments. He has appeared in C.A.No.8484/2003, at our request he has agreed to appear in the other appeal as well.

The learned counsel seeks two days’ time to prepare that case.

List on 18.3.2015. (SUMAN WADHWA) (SUMAN JAIN) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8484 OF 2003 Ghatge Patil Appellant(s) VERSUS Commnr. Of Central Excise,Pune Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1996 OF 2006 O R D E R In C.A.No. 8484/2003 The appellant/assessee is the manufacturer of Earth Moving equipments which they are supplying to Bharat Earth Movers Limited (hereinafter called the ’BEML’). The material is supplied by the BEML free of cost and after manufacturing the equipments the same are supplied to the BEML by the assessee. The question is whether that cost is to be included in the value for the purpose of excise duty in the hands of the assessee.

Without going into the controversy in detail, suffice it to state that the order impugned in the present case passed by the CEGAT is the one in which CEGAT had remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication in view of the observations made in the impugned order. Insofar as the show cause notice issued by the adjudication authority is concerned, the assessee had also raised the issue of limitation which has been decided by the CEGAT against the assessee. This is how the assessee is before us challenging the order of the CEGAT.

When the matter was called out for hearing we were informed that after the remand the Assistant Commissioner had again reiterated the demand though reduced the quantum to rupees seventy four lakhs. However, against that order appeal was filed by the assessee before the CEGAT and that appeal has been allowed thereby setting aside the demand raised by the adjudicating authority. Against the order of the CEGAT, the Revenue filed the appeal being Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2006. Since the show cause notices and consequent thereto the order passed by the adjudicating authority itself stands set aside by the CEGAT on merits, in so far as present appeal is concerned it may not be necessary to go into the issue of limitation and this appeal is disposed of accordingly as having become infurctuous. However, in case some merit is found in the Revenue’s appeal no.1996 of 2006 the assessee would be entitled to press the issue of limitation.

In C.A.No. 1996/2006 -3- Learned counsel for the Revenue states that he has not been given any instructions to appear in this appeal and he is not aware as to whom this appeal is granted for arguments. He has appeared in C.A.No.8484/2003, at our request he has agreed to appear in the other appeal as well.

The learned counsel seeks two days’ time to prepare that case.

List on 18.3.2015. ........................J. (A.K.SIKRI) .........................J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) New Delhi;

Date: 16.3.2015. ........................J. (A.K.SIKRI) .........................J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) New Delhi;

Date: 16.3.2015.