9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wa, After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri C.R.Raghavendra, Ld. Advocate and Ld. AR, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order has remanded all the matters to the original adjudicating authority for re-quantification of the demand. However, while remanding he has held that penalty is imposable upon the appellants and accordingly in the impugned orders as re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability on their final products ie., Air Circuit Breakers and Spares to Air Circuit Breakers in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. The Ld. Advocate clarifies that prior to 13.01.07, there was no requirement to put MRP on their product in terms of Rule 34A of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged and Commodity) Rules, 1977, in as much as their product was sold t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 6 requiring fixation of any MRP, if that be so, provisions of Section 4A are not attracted. 6. The Ld AR appearing for the Revenue draws our attention to the Bombay High Court s decision in the case of L & T Ltd. Vs. UOI 2012 (275) ELT 153 (Bom.), laying to the contrary. In his rejoinder, the Ld. Advocate states that the said decision of the Bombay High Court was taken note of by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal points before the original adjudicating authority, we also find that upholding of penalty amount, but having corrected the demand figures before the Commissioner (Appeals) is not fair. As such the issue on penalty is also kept open to be decided by the Assistant Commissioner, to whom the proceedings already stand remanded. All the stay petitions and appeals get disposed of in the above manne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
