TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iation of the present proceedings, with a view to illegally claim the benefits under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, he started printing the Maximum Retail Price on the packages being supplied by them to their institutional customers also, which act will not, in any way, absolve them of their liability during the relevant point of time of committing the evasion of duty. The Department is right in contending that the appellant is not entitled to claim any benefit under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, since his goods are chargeable under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Waiver of Pre-deposit - The applicant failed to make out a prima facie case for waiver of entire amount of duty along with interest and penalty – the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y liability to Rs.26,77,549/- and cess of Rs.53,551/- instead of Rs.34,49,891/- as demanded in the show-cause notice dated 31.7.2006. He submits that the Revenue challenged the order of the Settlement Commission before the Hon ble Madras High Court and the order of the Settlement Commission was set aside by the Hon ble Madras High Court. It is further submitted that the applicant filed appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court. By order and judgment dated 8.3.2013 in I.A. No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 1377 of 2011, the Hon ble Supreme Court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs within four weeks and upon depositing the said amount, recovery of the entire amount of penalty would be stayed. He submits that the Hon ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice dated 31.7.2006 and the deposit made against that show-cause notice would not be applicable to other four show-cause notices. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Settlement Commission settled the duty liability in respect of cookies under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On the other hand, the Division Bench of the Hon ble Madras High Court vide judgment dated 5.3.2010 set aside the decision of the Settlement Commission. The observation is under:- (ii) That the appellant is not obliged to declared the Maximum Retail Price on the packages and he has not declared the Maximum Retail Price on the packages supplied by them to their institutional customers at the relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
