2016 (11) TMI 684 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal affirms duty liability on frozen desserts, rejects Revenue's appeal

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision in favor of the respondent regarding the duty liability on four-litre packs of frozen ... Levy of tax - Eligibility of provisions of Section 4A - The respondent manufactured and cleared their finished products in four litre pack, whether the provisions of Section 4A will be attracted? - Held that: - catering pack of ice cream of four-litre pack are not covered under the provisions of Section 4A, but duty is liable to be discharged under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue. Issues:Interpretation of provisions of Section 4 and 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding duty liability on four-litre packs of frozen desserts and edible ice cream.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order-in-appeal that set aside the demands raised on the respondent related to the differential duty payable on frozen desserts and edible ice cream. The issue revolved around whether the respondent should discharge central excise duty based on MRP under Section 4A or under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands, but the first appellate authority ruled in favor of the assessee, leading to the current appeal.Upon reviewing the case, the Tribunal found that the issue had already been settled in the respondent's own case in a previous judgment where it was held that four-litre packs of ice cream are not covered under Section 4A but should be assessed under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This precedent was further supported by a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Jayanti Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Rajasthan, where it was clarified that Section 4 should apply to four-litre packs supplied to catering industries.Considering the settled legal position established by the apex court, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was correct and legally sound. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the decision in favor of the respondent. The Tribunal pronounced the rejection of the appeal in court, bringing the matter to a close.