9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Appellant(s) Shri H.Singh, A.R. for the Respondent(s) Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein demand of duty has been confirmed along with interest and penalty. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in fabrication of body chassis supplied by M/s Swaraj Mazda Limited (SML for short). During the relevant time the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant submits that in their own case, for the earlier period, vide Final Order No. 61971-61972/2017 dated 10.10.2017, this Tribunal as confirmed the demand along with interest but dropped the penalties against the appellant. The said order is under challenge before the Honble Apex Court, therefore he prays that penalty on the appellant is to be waived. 4. On the other hand, ld. AR supporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty in terms of Rule 10A of the Rules was in dispute and the same has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of Audi Automobiles (Supra) on 21.05.2009. We take a note of the fact that in the case of Audi Automobiles (Supra) itself, this Tribunal observed that the appellant cannot be accused of my suppression documents. In that circumstance, we hold that the extended period is not invokable. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
