TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondents Per: Archana Wadhwa, 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to 30.04.08 were required to discharge duty 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alers were held not attracting the provisions of 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....