2011 (6) TMI 547

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant ShriAnjali Hirawat, Advocate for the respondent Per: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Revenue is in appeal.  2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of pickle and ketchup. Their product is covered under Notification no. 46-20/95-CE(NT) dated 28.2.1999 issued under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It has been all....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lf of the revenue submitted that as per Notification 46-20/95 the product in dispute was covered under MRP based value and the respondent are required to fix MRP on their product and to pay duty accordingly which respondent has failed to do so.Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Anjali, advocate, ld. counsel for the respondent appeared and submitted that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stribution. She further submits that as the transaction value is available, therefore, they have paid the duty as per section 4 of the Act. Therefore the lower appellate authority has rightly held that valuation as per section 4A is not required for clearance of pickles which are for free distribution and not for retail sale. Therefore, the impugned order is to be upheld. 6. Heard both sides an....