2006 (6) TMI 345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. The appellants are required to pre-deposit duty of Rs.71,54,483/- and penalty of Rs.1 lakh. The matter was heard at length on 15-5-2006 and an interim stay was granted with a direction to the Comissioner to file his report and comments on the submissions made. After granting one adjournment to the Revenue, the matter has come up today .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... both sides in the matter and we are not agreeable with the comments placed by the Commissioner today. The show cause notice clearly proceeded on the basis that the both the units are related persons. In the comments filed today, there is a clear contradiction inasmuch as in second para, it is stated that no such allegation has been made in the show cause notice by the Department treating the appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s also, material has been placed to show that there was no suppression of facts. Furthermore, we find that once the Commissioner comes to a conclusion that they are not related persons, then it follows there is no suppression of facts for invoking larger period. Therefore, on both points the appellants are likely to succeed in the matter and hence, the stay application is allowed unconditionally g .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X