TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 901
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the requirement of pre-deposit in terms of the order passed in stay application, while rejecting the application for modification of the stay order. 3. The charge against the appellants was that on comparison of the MRP as declared in the price list with the price quoted in the invoices issued by the appellants, it was revealed that the appellants had been collecting the price lower than the MRP declared by them and the same was being done in order to maintain the total value of the production from their unit within the limits prescribed under Notification No. 8/99-C.E., dated 28th February 1999 and thereby had evaded the excise duty amounting to ₹ 1,09,357/-. Consequently, a show cause notice came to be issued on 9th Septembe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....02 (142) E.L.T. 212, the learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the appellants had not suppressed any fact and merely because the appellants could not establish the fact that the revised price list was filed, there could be no justification to confirm the demand and therefore, the appellants have a good case on merits and this aspect was not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) while dismissing the appeal. 4. On the other hand, the SDR placing reliance in the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Paresh Plastics P. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Rajkot reported in 2008 (226) E.L.T. 415 as well as to the sub-rule (2A) of Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 submitted that it is mandatory for the assessee to file price list ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....price lists submitted with effect from 21-4-1999 was not traceable, probably because the same was submitted by hand to the Range Superintendent and he did not consider to obtain a dated and signed acknowledgement from the Range Office". The Appellants were referring to the act of their Manager by name, Shri Jethanand, who is stated to have filed such additional price list. 7. Once it is the case of the appellants themselves that though as per law, they were required to file the correct price list and that they had actually filed it on 21-4-1999, it was necessary for them to establish the same and they could not blame the Department for their failure to prove the same. Inspite of a fair opportunity being given to the appellants, the ap....