2008 (7) TMI 766

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hy, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. -  The Misc. application for admitting fresh documents were heard. The appellants produced 7 documents in the form of correspondences with M/s. Polyset Plastics Pvt. Ltd (PPL in short) regarding consumption of material/cost and price increase to the various models o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ow Cause Notice and they would like to demonstrate the correspondences and invoices between Innosoft and M/s. PPL that the price was not unilaterally fixed. Therefore, these documents are of importance for the purpose of considering the whole gamut of allegations and the defence taken by the appellants. The allegation in the Show Cause Notice is that M/s. Innosoft and M/s. PPL are having mutual re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eing relevant for the purpose of this case. The learned Counsel submits that the reply filed was not correct and, therefore, the reply does not in any way take away the case made out by them. It is urged that the matter be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to admit these documents and to allow the appellants to contest the case afresh in the de novo. The prayer is opposed by the learned SDR. ....