https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115682 The Tribunal held that the differential duty demand and penalty imposed based on the M.R.P. valuation under Section 4A were not valid for goods cleared prior to Notification No. 9/2000 dated 1-3-2000, setting aside the impugned order. The Tribunal emphasized that depots are not recognized as a place of removal for goods valued under Section 4A, and the Revenue erred in invoking Section 4A valuation retrospectively for goods not specified under Section 4A at the time of removal. Consequently, the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant, clarifying the correct interpretation of depot recognition under the Central Excise Act, 1944. en-us Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:05:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115682 The Tribunal held that the differential duty demand and penalty imposed based on the M.R.P. valuation under Section 4A were not valid for goods cleared prior to Notification No. 9/2000 dated 1-3-2000, setting aside the impugned order. The Tribunal emphasized that depots are not recognized as a place of removal for goods valued under Section 4A, and the Revenue erred in invoking Section 4A valuation retrospectively for goods not specified under Section 4A at the time of removal. Consequently, the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant, clarifying the correct interpretation of depot recognition under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115682