Price declaration compliance under excise law must be proved; failure to show filing upheld dismissal for non-compliance.

Where excise law required filing of a revised price declaration under Rule 173C(2A), the assessee had to prove actual compliance; a bare assertion that the receipt was untraceable did not shift the burden to the Department. Filing of RT-12 returns did not cure the failure to establish that the prescribed price list had been filed, particularly in the context of SSI exemption benefits. On that basis, the assessee had no ground to challenge the pre-deposit direction, and dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal could succeed where the assessee failed to establish filing of the revised price list required under the excise law and, consequently, whether the order directing pre-deposit and dismissing the appeal for non-compliance warranted interference.

Analysis: Rule 173C(2A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required the assessee to file the prescribed price declaration. The assessee claimed to have filed a revised price list, but could not produce proof of actual filing. The record instead showed only an unverified assertion that the receipt was not traceable. In those circumstances, the assessee could not shift the failure of proof to the Department. The plea that RT-12 returns had been filed did not answer the core requirement of charging price in accordance with the declared list, particularly when SSI exemption benefits were involved. The cited decisions on different facts did not assist the assessee.

Conclusion: The assessee had no ground to challenge the impugned order, and the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the demand-related order failed, and the Revenue's position was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the law mandates filing of a price declaration, the assessee must prove compliance; failure to produce proof of filing disentitles the assessee from disputing the consequence of non-compliance, including dismissal for failure to satisfy pre-deposit requirements.

---