2010 (8) TMI 901 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement in stay application leading to dismissal of appeal
- Allegation of evading excise duty by charging lower prices than declared MRP
- Dispute over filing of revised price list and failure to provide proof
- Requirement of filing price list as per Rule 173C(2A) of Central Excise Rules
- Justification for dismissing appeal based on lack of proof of filing revised price list
- Accusation of charging lower prices to maintain total turnover limit for SSI exemption
- Comparison of present case with past judgments for relevance

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal arising from a Commissioner (Appeals) order dismissing the appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement in a stay application. The appellants were accused of evading excise duty by charging prices lower than the declared Maximum Retail Price (MRP) to maintain total production value within prescribed limits.

2. The appellants contested the charge by claiming they had filed a revised price list, but failed to provide evidence of the filing. The Tribunal noted the requirement under Rule 173C(2A) of the Central Excise Rules for every assessee to file a price list. The appellants' inability to prove filing the revised price list led to the dismissal of their appeal.

3. Despite the appellants' argument that they had a good case on merits, the Tribunal found no fault in the lower authority's decision. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with the price list filing requirement and faulted the appellants for failing to substantiate their claim of filing the revised price list.

4. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' defense of filing RT-12 returns as justification, emphasizing that charging prices lower than the price list was not permissible, especially when seeking Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption based on turnover limits.

5. The Tribunal differentiated the present case from past judgments like H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Mona Electronics, stating they were irrelevant as they did not pertain to compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower authority's decision based on the lack of evidence regarding the filing of the revised price list.