https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441630 Where individual retail pouches of branded chewing tobacco bore MRP and were intended for retail sale, the mere fact that they were placed in larger secondary packs did not take them out of Section 4A valuation; the goods remained liable to be assessed under the MRP-based regime rather than Section 4. The Tribunal also held that Section 11D could not be invoked because the differential duty was not actually collected from buyers, as credit notes had been issued and the amount was not retained for non-deposit. The valuation adopted by the lower appellate authority was therefore upheld, and the separate Section 11D demand failed. en-us Fri, 21 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Aug 2023 08:30:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441630 Where individual retail pouches of branded chewing tobacco bore MRP and were intended for retail sale, the mere fact that they were placed in larger secondary packs did not take them out of Section 4A valuation; the goods remained liable to be assessed under the MRP-based regime rather than Section 4. The Tribunal also held that Section 11D could not be invoked because the differential duty was not actually collected from buyers, as credit notes had been issued and the amount was not retained for non-deposit. The valuation adopted by the lower appellate authority was therefore upheld, and the separate Section 11D demand failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441630