2018 (6) TMI 1531 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal rules in favor of M/s Jagan Nath Dalip Singh on duty assessment for 'Branded Chewing Tobacco'

M/s Jagan Nath Dalip Singh, Shri Gulab Singh Partner & Shri Arun Kumar Partner Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ghaziabad

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD ruled in favor of the appellants, M/s Jagan Nath Dalip Singh, in a case involving the assessment of duty under ... Method of Valuation - 'Branded Chewing Tobacco‟ under the brand name of “MOR CHHAP” - Whether the appellants final packed product is required to be assessed to duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act or the same would attract duty in terms of Section 4 of CEA? Held that:- The issue now stand decided in the appellants own case Jagan Nath Dalip Singh and Others Vs. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ghaziabad, [2017 (8) TMI 587] laying down that the goods manufactured by the appellants are entitled to assessment of duty under the provisions of Section 4 of Central Excise Act in respect of retail packages in question - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues involved: Assessment of duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act vs. Section 4, imposition of penalty, applicability of previous judgment on similar issue.Assessment of duty under Section 4A vs. Section 4:The case involved M/s Jagan Nath Dalip Singh manufacturing 'Branded Chewing Tobacco' under the brand name 'MOR CHHAP' falling under Chapter 24 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The dispute centered around whether the final packed product should be assessed to duty under Section 4A or Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The tribunal noted that a previous judgment in the appellant's own case had determined that the goods should be assessed under Section 4. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, providing relief to the appellants.Imposition of penalty:The demand was raised and confirmed against the appellants, along with the imposition of penalties, based on the belief that the final product should attract duty under Section 4A and not Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. However, in light of the previous judgment in the appellant's favor, the tribunal found that the penalties imposed were not warranted. As a result, the tribunal allowed the appeals and provided consequential relief to the appellants.Applicability of previous judgment:The tribunal highlighted that the issue in the present appeals had already been decided in the appellant's own case, where it was established that the goods manufactured were to be assessed under the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act concerning retail packages in question. Citing this precedent, the tribunal set aside the impugned orders and granted relief to the appellants based on the earlier decision.The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD addressed the issues of assessment of duty under Section 4A versus Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, the imposition of penalties, and the applicability of a previous judgment on a similar issue. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, M/s Jagan Nath Dalip Singh, based on a previous judgment in their own case, which determined that the goods should be assessed under Section 4. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowed the appeals, and provided consequential relief to the appellants.