Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II Versus M/s Arora Products

2016 (1) TMI 266 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Valuation - Section 4 or 4A - respondents are engaged in the manufacture of branded chewing tobacco liable to central excise duty - Held that:- The wholesale packages are defined under Rule 2(x) of Standards of Weight and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The Tribunal further examined the definition for 'multiple piece package' under Rule 2(j) and 'retail package' under Rule 2(p) of the said rules. Since packages under which the products were sold by the respondent clearly fall within .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt : Shri B L Narasimhan, Adv ORDER Per B Ravichandran Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 10.4.2006 of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of branded chewing tobacco liable to central excise duty. The respondents are manufacturing lime mixed zarda in 6 gms and 3 gms pouches 24/32/35. Such pouches are packed together into packages and cleared. The issue arose regarding valuation of their products in terms of sect .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eal learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order and allowed the appeal. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) relied on this Tribunal's decision in the case of Swan Sweets Pvt.Ltd., Naxson Foods Pvt.Ltd., M/s.Makson Confectionary Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Cadbury India Ltd., vs, CCE, Rajkot/Gwalior - 2006-TIOL-229-CESTAT-Mum. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue is before us. 3. In the appeal, Revenue contended that small pouches of 6 gms and 3 gms are not bein .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is to be done. 4. During the course of arguments, learned AR reiterated the grounds of appeal and stated that the respondent is liable to pay central excise duty in terms of section 4A. Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the factual position that they were packing chewing tobacco in pouches of 3 gms and 6 gms which are intended for sale in retail to the ultimate consumer, has not been disputed by Revenue. Revenue has not been able to establish that the packages containing multipl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ceedings before the lower authorities. He further pleaded that reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Varnica Herbs is no more relevant as the same has been overruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE, Vapi vs. Krafttech Products-2008 (224) ELT 504 (SC). Hon'ble Supreme Court favoured the larger bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Urison Cosmetics Ltd.-2006 (198) ELT 508 (Tri.-LB) . The Tribunal in the said order held that Hon'ble .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version