TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (4) TMI 309
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.K. Abichandani, President]. - The appellant challenges the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order-in-original by which the provisional assessment for the period from 1-3-2002 to 22-2-2003 was finalised and the assessee was directed to pay the differential duty amount which according to the learned Senior Counsel for the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds manufactured by the applicants attracted the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The authorities below also relied upon the information given on 17-6-2003 by the Director of Legal Metrology, New Delhi to the effect that these items wrapped in grass/haystack, were covered by the packed commodities Rules. The Appellate Commissioner observed that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roduct manufactured by the applicant was not sold to the ultimate consumer in a packed form. It was submitted that such was the factual assertion made by the applicant which is reproduced in the show cause notice and at no point of time, it has been controverted. He further submitted that on a proper reading of Section 4A of the Act read with Rule 2(r) of the said Packaged Commodities Rules, in or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e packing. The liability to declare the retail price would arise for the excisability where the goods in such packaged form are sold to the ultimate consumer. In the present case, prima facie, it appears that the Commissioner (Appeals) concentrated more on the type of packages rather than on the fact whether the commoditity was to be sold to the ultimate consumer in packaged form. The issue being ....