https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116532 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the company, stating that the ice cream was not intended for retail sale, as evidenced by the absence of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) marking on the packaging. Therefore, valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act did not apply. The decision emphasized the importance of Board Circulars in determining valuation methods for goods and highlighted that the Revenue failed to prove any violation of the Weights & Measures Act. Consequently, the duty demand and penalties were not sustainable, and the company's appeals were allowed with consequential relief, including the return of the pre-deposit. en-us Wed, 07 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:14:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116532 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the company, stating that the ice cream was not intended for retail sale, as evidenced by the absence of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) marking on the packaging. Therefore, valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act did not apply. The decision emphasized the importance of Board Circulars in determining valuation methods for goods and highlighted that the Revenue failed to prove any violation of the Weights & Measures Act. Consequently, the duty demand and penalties were not sustainable, and the company's appeals were allowed with consequential relief, including the return of the pre-deposit. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116532