https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350872 The Tribunal noted that the earlier remand directions had not been implemented in substance because no effective verification was made on whether 25 kg packages supplied to the dealer required MRP declaration or were sold in retail so as to attract Section 4A valuation. It also found that the evidence on return of the 25 kg packs, repacking into smaller packs, and duty payment on MRP-based clearances had not been properly examined, and the limitation issue was not considered from the standpoint of revenue neutrality. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision. en-us Wed, 13 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Dec 2017 14:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350872 The Tribunal noted that the earlier remand directions had not been implemented in substance because no effective verification was made on whether 25 kg packages supplied to the dealer required MRP declaration or were sold in retail so as to attract Section 4A valuation. It also found that the evidence on return of the 25 kg packs, repacking into smaller packs, and duty payment on MRP-based clearances had not been properly examined, and the limitation issue was not considered from the standpoint of revenue neutrality. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350872