TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (3) TMI 622
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri N.K. Mishra, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The prayer in the Stay Petition is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs. 28,98,826.00 (Rupees twenty-eight lakhs ninety-eight thousand eight hundred and twenty-six) and penalty of an identical amount. Arguing on behalf of the appellants, Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Advocate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilways, but submits that the same is factually incorrect, inasmuch as no such para as reproduced by the Commissioner in his impugned Order exists. In any case, submits the learned Advocate that such testing charges on notional basis cannot be added in the assessable value, when nothing is being paid or being received by them from the Railways on this account. He submits that the price agreed upon ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....28-2-2002. He submits that the contracts in question had already been placed by them to the Revenue, based upon which number of show cause notices on another ground and for other reasons were issued to them. As such, it cannot be said that any thing has been wilfully suppressed by them from the Revenue so as to invoke the extended period of limitation. 2. Shri N.K. Mishra, learned JDR, for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral Excise Authorities. 3. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. The dispute involved in the appeal revolves around the addition of Rs. 23.50 per sleeper as testing charge which the appellant-company has never collected from the Railways. The Railway employees were doing the inspection themselves before taking the delivery. Merely, because such charges have been collected fr....