9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal [2010 (257) E.L.T. 226 (Tri.-LB)] and appeal filed by the respondent against the Larger Bench decision is pending in Hon'ble Supreme Court. The stay petition filed by the respondent has already dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26-11-2012. It is the contention of the Revenue that in the present impugned order re-quantification of duty has been done in pursuance of remand order passed by the Tribunal on 20th April, 2011. Since M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. are not aggrieved by re-quantification of duty and interest, their appeals as well as stay petitions are liable for dismissal as non-maintainable. 3. Ld. DR Shri Govind Dixit appearing for the Revenue submits that these appeals have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in view of his submissions as the appeals filed by the respondents are not maintainable, appeals as well as stay applications against the re-quantification order should be dismissed by the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Advocate Shri B.L. Narasimhan appearing for the appellant submits that in the order was passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner the same was communicated to them with preamble in which it is clearly stated that an appeal against the said order lies to CESTAT, Delhi and to be filed within three months from the date of communication. He further submits that though they have accepted re-quantification of duty which means they are not challenging the quantum of duty but their appeal against the inclusion of pre-delivery inspection cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case has been confirmed on addition of pre-delivery inspection charges and also after sale service charges collected by the dealers and the Larger Bench in their own case has decided the issue against them holding that duty is chargeable on the pre-delivery inspection charges and after sale service charges. The appellants had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter is pending for decision in the Supreme Court. To keep the matter alive on merits, the appellants have right to file an appeal before this Tribunal against the impugned order. Therefore we do not agree with the contention of Revenue that since the quantum of duty has been accepted by the respondent the appeal filed by them is not maintainable. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
