9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Duty of Rs. 63,704/- has been confirmed against the appellant and penalty of Rs. 500/- has been imposed by the authorities below. 2. Explaining the facts of the case ld. Adv. Shri S.N.S. Mohapatra submits that they entered into a contract with M/s. Seenappa Satty and Sons for supply of explosives at an agreed upon price. A price list was filed in Part-II along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r doing so is that the subsequent extention letter dated 3-12-1993 was not brought to the notice of the Revenue prior to issuance of the show cause notice, but the same was placed on record only after the show cause notice was issued to the appellants. Shri Mohapatra also refers to the Tribunal s larger Bench decision in the case of Camphor Allied Products Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad - 2000 (118) E.L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter produced by the appellants extending the earlier contract is for more quantity of explosives which was not a part of the original contract. 4. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the impugned order. We find that there is no dispute as regards the price list II prices in respect of the contract entered into by the appellants with their buyers. The dispute is only for the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
