2004 (2) TMI 410

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shetty, Sr. Manager, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  Heard both sides. The issue relates to assessment of ceramic tiles, in terms of provisions contained in Section 4A of the Central Excise Act based on the Maximum Retail Price (MRP). The show cause notice proposed recovery of differential duty on the various quantities of tiles cleared by the appellants indicating the following detail....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ll the goods are of same class as is clear from the excise invoice and delivery challan, the maximum MRP of Rs. 328/- has been taken for arriving at differential duty.   2. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, and also ordered confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 158,400/- with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine Rs. 39,600/-. Penalty of 2,750 was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l to make assessment under Section 4. 6. So far as the issue at Sr. No. 3, relating to carton bearing 2 MRPs one preprinted and the other affixed with the rubber stamp without erasing or blackening the earlier MRP is concerned, the respondent invited my attention to the order of this Tribunal E/2081/01 in CCE v. Nitco Tiles. 7. However on closer scrutiny of the said order, I note t....