2018 (2) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i L. Paneerselvan, AC (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appeal filed by M/s. Lotte India Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as "assessee") is against Order-in-Appeal No. 414/2005 [P], dated 31-12-2005. 2. M/s. Parry Confectionery Ltd., Nellikuppam are manufacturers of Sugar Confectionery. During the period February, 2003 and March, 2003, the assessees cleared sugar boiled confectionery witho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aside. Aggrieved by the decision, the present appeal has been filed. 4. With the above ground, heard Ms. Cynduja Krishnan, Advocate for the appellants and Shri L. Paneerselvan, AC (AR) for the Revenue. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the goods in question were sold at the contract price in bulk packs of 80 gms. as per the contracted price. The goods were meant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ere is no sale in retail to the ultimate customer. In such cases, there is no need to indicate MRP on the package. Once there is no retail sale, the valuation of the said goods will needs to be done by the assessee under Section 4 of the Act as has been done in the present case. 8. In view of the above, impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Operative part of the order pron .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X