9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., Advocates for the appellants. Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR for the revenue. Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar Since common question of law and facts arise in both these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. While in Appeal No.E/116/2005, the impugned order is dated 25.9.2003 whereby the Commissioner (A) has upheld the decision of the Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same having not being included for the relevant period, the appellants are liable to pay the differential duty to the tune of Rs.5,29,784.96 Ps. besides Cess of Rs.4801.18 Ps. for the period from July 2000 to September 2000 and sum of Rs.37,89,451/- besides Cess of Rs.32,543/- for the period from October 2000 to April 2002, whereas sum of Rs.8,35,036/- and Cess of Rs.7,568/- being due and payable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-III reported in 2010 (257) ELT 226 (Tri.-LB) and the Larger Bench having decided the issue against the contention of the assessee herein, submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have atleast directed quantification of the value of such services afresh for the entire period and not restricted to the period from July 2000 to April 2002. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention of the learned advocate for the appellant that the appellant s case should be considered differently from the one decided in terms of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. case (supra) merely on the basis of failure on the part of the department to challenge the order dated 30.1.2008, however, is devoid of substance. Once the law has been settled by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
