TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal clarifies valuation rules for branded chewing tobacco in retail packages</h1> <h3>CCE & ST, Jaipur–II Versus M/s Arora Products And (Vice-Versa)</h3> CCE & ST, Jaipur–II Versus M/s Arora Products And (Vice-Versa) - 2018 (359) E.L.T. 604 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Contesting imposition of penalty and dropping of demand of differential duty under Section 4.2. Interpretation of legal provisions regarding valuation of branded chewing tobacco in multi-piece retail packages.Analysis:1. The judgment involves 23 appeals against a common impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. One appeal by the appellant/assessee contests the penalty imposition, while the other 22 appeals by Revenue contest the dropping of demand of differential duty under Section 4. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of branded chewing tobacco subject to Central Excise duty.2. The case revolves around the assessment of branded chewing tobacco in multi-piece retail packages. The Revenue proposed assessment under Section 4A, considering the multi-piece packages as retail packages. The Commissioner (Appeals) held the appellant liable under Section 4A up to a certain date and under Section 4 thereafter, imposing a differential duty and penalty. The Revenue contested the order, arguing that the appellant should pay tax under Section 4 only from a specific date.3. The arguments presented by both sides focused on the interpretation of legal provisions, specifically Rule 2A and Rule 34(b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities Rules), 1977. The appellant contended that the multi-piece packages should be considered retail packages, falling under Section 4A. However, the Tribunal found that the larger packages were not intended for retail sale to consumers, based on the absence of MRP for the larger package.4. Referring to a similar case, the Tribunal highlighted previous decisions supporting the appellant's position. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods cannot be subjected to MRP-based assessment under Section 4A. The judgment also cited a Supreme Court case upholding valuation under Section 4.5. The Tribunal noted the deletion of certain provisions from the Packaged Commodities Rules from a specific date, which affected the application of legal provisions for valuation. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals by Revenue and partially allowed the appeal by the appellant, setting aside the penalty imposed for the relevant period.6. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals by Revenue and partly allowed the appeal by the appellant, considering the interpretation of legal provisions and the statutory requirements related to the valuation of branded chewing tobacco in multi-piece retail packages.
TaxTMI 