TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the Commissioner (Appeals) "not legal and proper". 3. The respondent is a manufacturer of insecticides and pesticides. It valued consignments cleared by it both under 4 and Section 4A of the Central Excise Act depending upon the type of clearances. Section 4 valuing was resorted to when the clearances were in bulk to other industrial users and Section 4A valuation in other cases. Revenue authorities took a view that the former type of clearances were also required to be valued under Section 4A. Based on that stand, the differential duty demand, including demand raised by denying small scale exemption, were confirmed. When the matter went before the Commissioner (Appeals), he accepted the respondent-assessee's contention and set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed department (generally, the Metrology Deptt. of the State Govt.). Relevant portion of that circular may be extracted: "The Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, and the rules made thereunder, are administered by the State Govts. Instances of dispute could arise between the Deptt. and the assessee as to neither, in respect of a particular commodity/transaction, the assessee is exempted from declaring the retail price or not. In case of such doubt a clarification may be obtained from the concerned Deptt.(generally the Metrology Deptt.) of the State Govt.". 5. Despite the above clarification, revenue is persisting with the claims for differential duty on the ground that valuation of the said clearances should have been done unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary are not sustainable". 7. The above order has attained finality since no appeal has been filed against it. From the certificate of the Weights and Measures authorities, the circular of the Board and the earlier order of this Tribunal, it is clear that there is no error, illegality or impropriety In the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). There is no merit in the present appeals. They are rejected. 8. Before parting with the case, we may note that the provision for., review of orders by a Committee of Commissioners was introduced in the Finance Act, 2005. with a view to bringing about qualitative improvement in the review process and to prevent frivolous appeals. This appeal clearly shows that, even under the Committee system, ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
