TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... false false false EN-IN X-NONE <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the transaction value as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Show cause notices were issued to the appellants on the ground that as the appellants had cleared the pouches of chewing tobacco in polypacks containing more than one smaller pouches. The excise duty was required to be paid on the basis of valuation under section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand after assessing the goods in question under section 4A of the Central Excise Act against respective appellants and also imposed penalty. The appeals filed against the respective order-in-original were dismissed by the impugned orders in respective appeals. 2. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, appearing for M/s Milap Zarda Udyog and Shri Mayank G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lti pack containing more than one single unit is to be taken into account for the purpose of applicability of rules and total weight of multi-unit package being more than 10 gms., Rule 4 A of the Central Excise Act is applicable and the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly assessed and confirmed duty demand as per Rule 4 A of the Central Excise Act. It is further contended that chewing tobacco pouches as per the market practice are not sold by weight but by numbers therefore also. Rule 34(b) of the Package Commodity Rules would not come to the aid of the appellants. 4. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. 5. The issue raised in these appeals is no more res integra. Similar issue on facts and law came up befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure. It states that the combined net weight shall be taken into consideration for the purposes mentioned therein. After combined weight is taken into consideration for the purpose of applicability of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the said purpose shall not be considered to be a relevant factor for applying the exemption provision. Assuming Rule 2(j) was otherwise vague or unambiguous, illustration appended thereto brings out the true meaning and purport thereof. The reasoning adopted by the Madras High Court in Varnica Herbs (supra) does not appeal to us. It was rendered per incuriam. It was held, to be so in Urison Cosmetics Ltd. (supra) by a Larger Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. We agree with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
