https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155626 For waiver of pre-deposit, the appellant was not found to have made out a prima facie case against denial of exemption under Notification No. 05/2006-C.E. because Condition No. 3 required proper account maintenance and timely filing of monthly returns in the prescribed form and manner. The Trade Notice prescribing compliance was treated as valid and operative under Rule 33 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as no inconsistency with the rules was shown. As the returns were not filed within the stipulated period, full waiver of the duty demand was declined, but waiver of interest and penalty was considered justified pending appeal. en-us Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Sep 2013 10:25:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155626 For waiver of pre-deposit, the appellant was not found to have made out a prima facie case against denial of exemption under Notification No. 05/2006-C.E. because Condition No. 3 required proper account maintenance and timely filing of monthly returns in the prescribed form and manner. The Trade Notice prescribing compliance was treated as valid and operative under Rule 33 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as no inconsistency with the rules was shown. As the returns were not filed within the stipulated period, full waiver of the duty demand was declined, but waiver of interest and penalty was considered justified pending appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155626