9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w-cause notices were issued proposing demand of duty of Rs.74,92,468/- for the period 1.3.2005 to June 2009 assessing the goods on the transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The original authority confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and imposed penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the stay order. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the applicant submits that they have deposited the entire amount of duty in respect of show-cause notice dated 31.7.2006 and they went to the Settlement Commission for settling the dispute. He submits that the Settlement Commission fixed the duty liability to Rs.26,77,549/- and cess of Rs.53,551/- instead of Rs.34,49,891/- as dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erates the findings of the order of the Commissioner. He submits that the original authority had given a detailed finding in respect of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayanthi Food Processing (supra). He submits that in view of the amendment of Rule 2A of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 with effect from 14.1.2007, the decision of the Honble Supreme Court would not be applicable in the present case. He submits that the period of dispute in the case of Jayanthi Food Processing (supra) was prior to 2007. He further submits that the applicant went to the Settlement Commission in respect of show-cause notice dated 31.7.2006 and the deposit made against that show-cause notice would n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so noted that the other four show-cause notices is not in dispute before the Settlement Commission and therefore the submission of the learned counsel that the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be accepted. 6. In view of the above discussion and considering the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court as stated above, we find that the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case for waiver of entire amount of duty along with interest and penalty. We have noted from the order of the Settlement Commission that the applicant has already paid excess amount of Rs.7,18,791/- in respect of show-cause notice dated 31.7.2006. 7. After considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the applicant t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
