9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers on onward revision of prices. The appellants have paid duty but are contesting the demand of interest in the matter. Learned counsel submits that this very issue has been decided by this bench in the case of Motherson Sumi System Ltd. v. CCE Bangalore [2005 (192) E.L.T. 402 (Tri.-Bang.)} and the Mumbai bench in the case of Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 622 (Tri.-Mum.). As the appellants were not aware of the prices that are required to be enhanced sbsequently therefore, the supplementary invoices later issued enhancing the prices was due to peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in such circumstances only duty is required to be paid. The finding recorded in Para in the case of Mother ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CCE, Belgaum - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 305 (Tri.-Bang.). The finding recorded in para 6 is reproduced herein below "6. The main points urged by the learned Advocates were: (i) The demand is premature since in terms of the Book Examination Clause, the matter has been referred to the Ministry of finance and still pending. Therefore, there is no finalization even till now. In these circumstances the demand is premature. (ii)The demand should be considered time barred because the period of demand is 1999-2000 and 2003-2004 and The Show Cause Notice was issued on 19-7-2004. There cannot be any suppression of facts as the entire contracts were submitted to the Department even in 1999 and 2000. (iii) It is not the case of the appellant that they d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber Bench in the case of M/s. Inducto Casts v. CCE & C, Vadodara - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 455 (T) = (2007-TIOL-1348-CESTAT-Ahm.) 5. Learned representative submits that the decision in the case of M/s Inducto Casts (supra) is an ex-parte order of a single Member and has not considered all the other previous judgments. It is rendered sub-silensio. Learned SDR relied on the decision in the case Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow v. Kanhai Ram Thekedar - 2005 (185) E.L.T 3 (S.C.). We find that this judgment pertains to UP Sales Tax Act and is distinguishable. 6. On a careful consideration, we notice that the issue has already been decided by the judgments cited by the learned representative. This bench has been consistently taking the view that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
