9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 169 - HC - Central ExciseMRP based duty - section 4A - CESTAT directed to make Entire Duty as Pre-deposit - Revenue was of the view that the goods manufactured by the assessee were governed by the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 and, therefore, the assessee was obliged to affix maximum retail price (MRP) on the goods manufactured and cleared by the assessee - Held that - Following Subhash Arjandas Kataria v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2011 (8) TMI 922 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - In these circumstances, when the issue as to whether the 1977 Rules were applicable to the case of the appellant itself was in doubt and during the relevant period - this was a fit case for granting waiver of pre-deposit Accordingly the order was set aside and CESTAT was directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the assessee on merits and in accordance with law, without insisting pre-deposit of the duty demand confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority.
Issues:
Whether CESTAT was justified in directing the appellant to deposit the entire duty demand confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority? Analysis: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing switchgear products, faced a dispute regarding clearances made from December 2007 to May 2008. The Revenue claimed the goods should have had maximum retail price (MRP) affixed as per the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,01,48,606/- due to the appellant's failure to affix MRP. The appellant appealed to CESTAT, which, despite acknowledging the issue's debatable nature, directed the appellant to deposit the entire duty amount. During the relevant period, conflicting judgments existed. A previous High Court decision stated the 1977 Rules did not apply, but a subsequent High Court ruling, following an Apex Court decision, overturned this stance. The Apex Court, however, expressed doubts on its own ruling and requested a Larger Bench to review the matter. Given the uncertainty surrounding the applicability of the 1977 Rules to the appellant's case and the conflicting judgments, the High Court deemed it appropriate to grant a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement. Consequently, the High Court set aside CESTAT's order and instructed it to hear the appeal on merits without insisting on the duty pre-deposit. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the appeal without costs, emphasizing the need for a thorough consideration of the case on its merits and in accordance with the law, without the burden of pre-deposit.
|
