2014 (5) TMI 383

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 2009 (248) ELT 713 (Tri. Bang); (ii) ABB Ltd B/s. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore reported in 2011 (272) ELT 706 ( Tri. Bang); (iii) Ravi Food Pvt Ltd v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 2011 (266) ELT 399 (Tri. Bang); (iv) Final Order No. A/17731776/ 13/CSTB/CI in the case of Legrand India Private Limited; and (v) Final Order No. A/11683111693/ 2013 dated 12.12.2013 in the case of Mesrs. Acme Ceramics and others; holding that in the absence of the Rules being framed under Section 4A of the Act, the Respondents have no jurisdiction to determine the retail sale price in the absence of retail sale price being declared on the package prior to 1st March, 2008 when the Appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he switchgear products of the Appellants are commodity in packaged form within the meaning of Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Standards of weights and Measures (packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 and the Appellants were required to declare the retail price on the packages of their switchgear products? (i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in sustaining the demand, interest and penalty? (j) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal of the Appellants? 2 The appellant seeks interim reliefs. 3 We would have decided this appeal at the stage of admission itself on the first question raised by the appellant. There was a difference of opinion betwee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... even against predeposit. The Tribunal had directed a predeposit. The Division Bench held that the issue as to whether the 1977 Rules are applicable to the case of the appellant itself, is in doubt. The Division Bench, accordingly, quashed and set aside the order and directed the CESTAT to dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant therein on merits without insisting on predeposit. The Division Bench, therefore, prima facie at least held that the law as it stands is in favour of the appellant. (B) There is another important aspect. Prima facie, at least, even before the Tribunal the position of law appears to be in favour of the appellant. Unfortunately, the third member did not consider the judgment of the Tribunal. In a group of matt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se all or any of the powers they have under the General Sales Tax law of the State; Section 3(3) of the Central Sales Tax provides that State Government may make rules not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder. The Uttar Pradesh State Government has framed Central Sales Tax (U. P. Rules) 1957, in exercise of the powers conferred under the CST Act,1956 and Rule 9 of the said Rules provided that the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 and U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and U. P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948 as amended from time to time or the rules made thereunder would apply to the dealer liable for assessment under Central Sales Tax Act and U. P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948, Rule 44 (B) prescribed the manner of det....