Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 1115 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

2016 (11) TMI 1115 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD - TMI - Valuation - assessable value u/s 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - appellant statutorily required to affix MRP on the individual package since such package was not exempted under Clause A of Sub-rule 2 of Rule 34 of Weights & Measures Act, 1977 and if the goods in question are excluded under Rule 34 of Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, then only they are out of the operation of Section 4A ibid - Held that: - sub-secti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rice declared on such goods less such amount of abatement allowed by notification issued in the official gazette and for such goods anything contained in Section 4 ibid shall not be applicable. So, once goods are covered by notification issued under Section 4A, then irrespective of any other consideration such as whether the supply is in wholesale or in retail, provisions of Section 4 are not applicable to such goods. - The Notification No. 5/2001 dated 01-03-2001 was issued under Section 4A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. - Appeal Nos. E/1173 & 1174/2007-EX [DB] - FINAL ORDER NO. 70770-70771/2016 - Dated:- 10-6-2016 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Mrs. Surbhi Sinha Advocate, for the Appellant(s) Shri V.R. Reddy (Asst. Commr.) A.R., for the Department Per Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar : The present two appeals are arising out of common Order-in-Original and common Order-in-Appeal issue against Unit Nos. I & II of the appellant and therefore they are taken toget .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tract, the sale not being to ultimate consumer such quantum of sale does not attract provisions of said Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and such quantum of goods needs to be assessed by ariving at value as provided under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and assessable value arrived at under Section 4 was higher than the assessable value arrived at under Section 4A, after availing abatement and therefore differential Central Excise duty was payable by the appellants. The appellants we .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ection 11A ibid. There were also other proposals in the said Show Cause Notice. Both the Show Cause Notices were adjudicated through Order-in-Original No. 12/Joint Commissioner/05 dated 28-11-2005. The appellant contended before the Original Authority that the appellant was statutorily required to affix MRP on the individual package since such package was not exempted under Clause A of Sub-rule 2 of Rule 34 of Weights & Measures Act, 1977 and if the goods in question are excluded under Rule .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

before Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the said appeal through Order-in-Appeal No. 6-7/CE/Noida dated 25-01-2007. The Appellate Authority did not interfere with the Original Order and rejected appeal. Against the said Order-in-Appeal dated 25-01-2007, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. The appellant contended in the grounds of appeal that Section 4A applies to valuation of specified goods and for valuation under said Section who is the buyer is relevant and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ovisions of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, the ld. Counsel is taken through Notification No. 05/2001 (N.T.) dated 01-03-2001 issued under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and argued that by understanding the wording of the sub-section 1 of Section 4A, it is very clear that the goods in respect of which a notification has been issued in the official gazette by Central Government specifying that the valuation in respect of such goods shall be as provided under Section 4A th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of - Purisons Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II reported at 2004 (164) E.L.T. 417 (Tri. - Delhi) and in the case of Surya Kiran Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida reported at 2010 (252) E.L.T. 449 (Tri. - Delhi) and argued that the same are squarely applicable in the present case. Heard the ld. Departmental Representative who has supported the impugned orders. 5. We have taken rival contentions into consideration. We find that sub .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version