2004 (6) TMI 438

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Mondal and T.K. Kar, SDRs, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Jain, Member (T)]. -  These are altogether five appeals out of which three have been filed by the applicants/appellants and two have been filed by the Department. 2. At the outset, Shri B.J. Mookherjee, learned Advocate submits that in Appeal No. EDM-400/03, the brand name - KAMCO ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct because herein the two products are different and the logos are also different. 3. After hearing both sides, we find substantial force in the Advocate's arguments. The adjudicating officer may decide the issue in light of the Tribunal's judgments referred to above. On this issue, we remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority. The app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iew of this, learned SDR submits that the MRP in this case should be taken as Rs. 9.00 per bottle of KAMCO. 6. After hearing both sides, we find that there is no provision in Section 4A to consider the price advertised in the local newspaper as the actual MRP. Hence the assessable value in this case would be the MRP as printed on the package, in this case, crown cork, after due abatement a....