TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 528
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of cost of raw material and job charges determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. In a show-cause notice dated 6-2-2006, the department demanded differential duty of Rs. 70,27,221/- [along with differential Education Cess] from them in respect of the goods cleared to Agfa depot and also proposed penalty on them. This demand was MRP-based under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. It was contested by the appellants by submitting that the subject goods was covered by the exemption under Rule 34 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 and therefore valuation under Section 4A was unwarranted. In adjudication of the dispute, the Commissioner held that the valuation of the goods was liable to be m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) thereof is not available to it. The packages in question carried the marking "this film is specially packed for the exclusive use of Printing and Publishing Industry as a raw material". It is on this basis that they have claimed exemption under Rule 34(a) ibid from MRP-based levy of duty of excise. According to the Revenue, as the goods manufactured by the appellants were not directly sold to industrial consumers, the benefit of Rule 34(a) would not be available to them. To this, the appellants' answer is that there was no legal requirement prior to 13-1-2007 that any industrial consumer must buy packaged commodities directly from the manufacturers for using the same as raw material in their industry. Their case is that this requirement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pecified in the amending Notification, there is no question of giving retrospective effect to the amended provisions. In this connection, learned counsel has relied on the Tribunal's decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - 2007 (211) E.L.T. 481 (Tri.- Mumbai). Referring to the submission of learned SDR that the appellants were paying duty in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act prior to the period of dispute, learned counsel has submitted the appellants are not estopped from claiming assessment for the period of dispute under Section 4 of the Act for valid reasons. There is no estoppel in tax matters. In this connection, he has relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. & Anoth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osition was laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Controls & Switchgears Contractors Ltd. (supra). In that case also, the question was whether the assessee's product was to be charged to duty of excise in terms of Section 4 or in terms of Section 4A. The goods were sold directly to industrial consumers as well as through a network of dealers. The assessee had claimed exemption under Rule 34(a) on the ground that their goods were meant for exclusive use of industries as a raw material. The Tribunal held that, as the marking on the packages unambiguously indicated that the goods had been specially packed for exclusive use of industries as raw material, it was not to be charged to duty of excise in terms of Section 4A and that duty was levi....