9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. Shri K. Srivastava, SDR, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : K. Sankararaman, Member (T)]. - These two appeals involve substantially the same issue as to whether the show cause notices issued were barred by limitation as they were issued beyond a period of six months from the relevant date. We are accordingly passing this combined order disposing of these appeals after hearing both sides. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from their customers. The adjudicating authority had held that their paying duty on the net value after excluding the service charge amounted to suppression and confirmed the demand. Learned counsel submitted that the facts of the case do not bear out the allegation and the order is liable to be set aside. 2. In reply Shri K. Srivastava, learned SDR stated that when the contention regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e invoice price in arriving at the assessable value had been disallowed and the demand confirmed. 3. We have considered the arguments. The contention is that the show cause notice covered by the first appeal did not contain any mention of suppression, mis-statement etc. It merely referred to the incorrect payment of duty resulting in short levy. As regards the second appeal, the fact that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
