9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. Heard both sides. 2.The Hon ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11th February, 2004 [2004 (165) E.L.T. 134 (S.C.)] remanded the matter to the Tribunal only on the issue of limitation. On merit, Hon ble Supreme Court decided against the appellant. 3.The Hon ble Supreme Court held as under :- So far as the question of bar of limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xamine the matter whether the statement made by the appellants in the price lists are correct and what the effect thereof would be. In the circumstances, we set aside the order made by the Tribunal and remit the matter for examination only on the question of limitation and penalty. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent stated above. 4.The contention of the appellant is that the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fans and regulators under separate invoices, which is known to Revenue, therefore, no suppression can be alleged against the appellant. 5.The contention of the Revenue is that the appellant had not declared in the price list that they were clearing fans without regulators and the price of regulators is not included in the price of the fans. The contention is that the appellant declared only the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter dated 13-12-84. In these circumstances, as the appellant had declared in the price list rightly in respect of fans without regulator which they were manufacturing and they were also clearing fans and regulators under separate invoices. The Revenue was also aware that appellants were bringing regulators into the factory. The Revenue is not disputing the fact that assessment in respect of these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
