TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other than packaged form. Since, in this case the goods had been cleared for export to Nepal and as such there was no requirement to declare the MRP on the bags of the cement in accordance with the provisions of SWM Rules, 1977, the cement would have to be treated as “other than packaged form” even though the MRP had been printed and accordingly, the same would be covered by Sl. No. 1C of the table annexed to the Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., where the duty is 14% adv. or Rs. 400/- per M.T. whichever is higher. There is no dispute that if the duty is charged at the rate prescribed in Sl. No. 1C of the table annexed to the Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., there would be no short payment. As the same prima facie view had been taken by the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants were required to pay duty on this cement at the tariff rate. On this basis a show cause notice dated 23-12-2010 was issued to M/s. Jay Pee Bela Plant for demand of differential duty amounting to Rs. 5,78,70,230/- alongwith interest and also for imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and another show cause notice dated 23-12-2010 was issued to M/s. Jaypee Rewa Plant for demand of differential duty amounting to Rs. 8,65,99,025/- and also for imposition of penalty on them under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 1.1 Both the show cause notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Bhopal. The Commissioner vide order-in-original No. 7/COMMR/Adj./2012 dated 12-3-2012 confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, that the appellant have a strong prima facie case and, hence, the requirement of pre-deposit of duty demand and interest may be waived for hearing of the appeals and recovery thereof may be stayed till the disposal of the appeals. 4. Shri A.K. Jain, learned Jt. CDR opposed the stay application pleading that since in respect of export consignments there was no requirement to print the MRP in terms of the provisions of SWM Act, 1976 and the Rules made thereunder, there is no MRP in respect of the same and, hence, the duty was chargeable at the tariff rate. He, therefore, pleaded that this is not a case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. 6. The cement in this case had been cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that the same would be covered by Sl. No. 1C of the table annexed to the Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., where the duty is 14% adv. or Rs. 400/- per M.T. whichever is higher. There is no dispute that if the duty is charged at the rate prescribed in Sl. No. 1C of the table annexed to the Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., there would be no short payment. We find that same prima facie view had been taken by the Tribunal in the appellant s own case for the previous period in the Stay Order No. 166-167/2012-EX(BR), dated 24-1-2012 by which the requirement of pre-deposit had been waived. In view of this, we are of the view that the appellant have a prima facie case in their favour. The requirement of pre-deposit of duty demand and interest is, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
