Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 587 - CESTAT ALLAHABADValuation - Compact Fluorescent Lamps - bulk sale - valued as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, or Section 4A? - Held that: - the issue is no longer res Integra, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Liberty Shoes Ltd [2015 (12) TMI 1159 - SUPREME COURT] and accordingly we hold that there being no dispute that CFL was an item specified under Section 4A of the Act (which is covered under the Packaged Commodities Rules) and further MRP was affixed on the products supplied, as such the same would not exempted under Rule 34 of the Rules, read with the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further we find that the finding of Id. Commissioner (Appeals is based on mistake of fact, the impugned order is fit to be set aside. Further we hold that under the facts and circumstances no case of contumacious conduct or suppression is made out and as such extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue. We allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order with consequential benefits to the appellant - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
|