9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) CE/JPR-I (129) 2001, dated 24-4-2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur. The Commissioner quashed the order of the lower authority demanding interest of over Rs. 12 lakhs from the respondent assessee M/s. K.E.C. International Ltd., Jaipur. The ground for setting aside the order was that a demand of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act is maintainable only if d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the appellant did not disclose information about the raising of price variation bills, the case involved suppression of facts. 3. We have perused the records and have heard both sides. The facts of the case are that the appellant was a supplier of transmission Line Towers and parts thereof to Rajasthan Electricity Board. The contract for sale contained price escalation clause. When the goods w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valid only after such increase is accepted by the buyer of the goods. Therefore, they submit that the duty became due in the present case only upon acceptance of the higher price by the buyer and payment of the same. The learned Counsel for the assessee stressed that since the appellant voluntarily paid differential duty after receipt of the higher price, there was no suppression of any facts by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
