2003 (11) TMI 397

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant. Shri Vikas Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)].  This order will dispose of the above captioned two appeals which have been directed against the impugned order-in-originals, dated 30-11-2001 passed by the Commissioner vide which he has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 74,11,154/- (in appeal No. E/917) and Rs. 4,37,05,930/- (in appeal No. E....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts.  He has also contended that since there had been no suppression of facts or fraud played by the appellants, the provisions of Section 11AB for charging interest could not be invoked. On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 3. In appeal No. E/9188, the learned Counsel, however, without contesting the duty liability of the appellants....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ilizer, still the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000, dated 1-2-2000 would be available to an assessee. But that view had been reversed by the Apex Court in Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara - 2001 (128) E.L.T. 13. After that decision of the Apex Court, the appellants deposited the differential duty. There is nothing on the record to suggest if there h....