9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 764X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 29.43 lakhs and equal penalty. 2. The applicant uniformly charges customers 2% of the invoice price. This is stated to be interest for delayed payment i.e. payment for the goods made beyond any day after the date of invoice. It is contended that part of the interest so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Goodlass Nerolac v. U.O.I. - 1993 (65) E.L.T. 186. He further contends that the extended period of limitation within which the entire demand for duty fell, will not be available. The same issue had been raised by notice issued to the applicant on 27-3-96 for a prior period and the Asstt. Commissioner had confirmed the demand on the ground that the amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 1-3-86 cannot successfully allege that it had suppressed. Prima facie, therefore the availability of the extended period of limitation is debatable. In other words, it is difficult to see how the assessee could be accused of suppressing during a later period of the fact, the fact on which the department had already proceeded. 6. On this view, we waive deposit of the duty and penalty and stay t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
