9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Shri A.K. Jain, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. The impugned order demands duty of Rs. 20.77 lakhs approx., of which Rs. 3.43 lakhs appox. has been paid, leaving a balance of Rs. 17.34 lakhs approx. Penalties have been imposed of Rs. 20.77 lakhs on the assessee and Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh on Rajendra Gildia (Application E/Stay-324/2001) and P.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cant. Evidence in the form of a letter dated 1-1-2000 of the railway certifying that no amount has been paid towards sales tax to the applicant for the period in question is relied upon. This, is our view, affords a prima facie defence to the applicant so far as this portion of the demand is concerned. 3. The other contention raised by the Counsel for the applicant is that, assuming that 4% of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the amount represents anyone of all these elements. It is not possible to say at this stage that the terminology was so clear that the departmental officers should in the normal course have been put on the qui vive. 5. Having regard to these factors, and taking into account the duty amount already paid we think a deposit of Rs. 6 lakhs by the assessee would be appropriate. On such deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
