TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Samir Chakraborty, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Y.S. Loni, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. The appellant has challenged order of adjudication dated 16-1-2004 holding that value of impugned neam active tooth paste shall form part of the combi pack containing two Margo soaps and such value should be included in the MRP declared on the package carryin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ombination package reads as under : combination package means a package intended for retail sale, containing two or more individual packages, or individual pieces of dissimilar commodities . 2.2 The ld. Counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jayanti Food Processing (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajasthan reported in 2007 (215) E.L.T. 327 (S.C.) and sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Govt. from time to time. Section 4A prescribing the method of valuation in respect of package commodity under SWM Act, 1976 and the goods entitled to such modality of valuation having been notified by the Central Govt., any addition of value to the MRP declared on the package is inconceivable. Therefore, Revenue s contention runs counter to the mandate of law. 2.3 Also, he relied on the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the appellant during the period March, 2002 to July, 2002. The authority below has rightly passed order on the basis of law which is not liable to be interfered. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the goods in question were governed by sub-section (1) of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and attracts sub-section (2) thereof for the purpose of v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion by law. Finding that the ld. Counsel s submissions have force and his reliance on the Apex Court judgment is appropriate as well as the goods not disputed to be uncovered by Notification under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellant should succeed. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. (Operative part of the order pronounced in the court on 4-3-2008) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
