TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (10) TMI 534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., for the Appellant. Shri R.C. Sankhla, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. - Heard both sides. 2.The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11th February, 2004 [2004 (165) E.L.T. 134 (S.C.)] remanded the matter to the Tribunal only on the issue of limitation. On merit, Hon'ble Supreme Court decided against the appellant. 3.The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... think it is appropriate for the Tribunal to examine the matter whether the statement made by the appellants in the price lists are correct and what the effect thereof would be. In the circumstances, we set aside the order made by the Tribunal and remit the matter for examination only on the question of limitation and penalty. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent stated above."  4.The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the regulators. The appellants were clearing the fans and regulators under separate invoices, which is known to Revenue, therefore, no suppression can be alleged against the appellant.  5.The contention of the Revenue is that the appellant had not declared in the price list that they were clearing fans without regulators and the price of regulators is not included in the price of the fans. ....