2007 (11) TMI 228

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upplementary invoices to the customers on onward revision of prices. The appellants have paid duty but are contesting the demand of interest in the matter. Learned counsel submits that this very issue has been decided by this bench in the case of Motherson Sumi System Ltd. v. CCE Bangalore [2005 (192) E.L.T. 402 (Tri.-Bang.)} and the Mumbai bench in the case of Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 622 (Tri.-Mum.). As the appellants were not aware of the prices that are required to be enhanced sbsequently therefore, the supplementary invoices later issued enhancing the prices was due to peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in such circumstances only duty is required to be paid. The finding rec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ne Housing Development Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Belgaum - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 305 (Tri.-Bang.). The finding recorded in para 6 is reproduced herein below "6. The main points urged by the learned Advocates were: (i) The demand is premature since in terms of the Book Examination Clause, the matter has been referred to the Ministry of finance and still pending. Therefore, there is no finalization even till now. In these circumstances the demand is premature. (ii)The demand should be considered time barred because the period of demand is 1999-2000 and 2003-2004 and The Show Cause Notice was issued on 19-7-2004. There cannot be any suppression of facts as the entire contracts were submitted to the Department even in 1999 and 2000. (iii....