2016 (1) TMI 266

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Per B Ravichandran Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 10.4.2006 of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of branded chewing tobacco liable to central excise duty. The respondents are manufacturing lime mixed zarda in 6 gms and 3 gms pouches 24/32/35. Such pouches are packed together into packages and cleared. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Cadbury India Ltd., vs, CCE, Rajkot/Gwalior - 2006-TIOL-229-CESTAT-Mum. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue is before us. 3. In the appeal, Revenue contended that small pouches of 6 gms and 3 gms are not being sold by weight or measure. Revenue relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Varnica Herbs-2004 (163)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e has not been able to establish that the packages containing multiple pouches of 6 gms or 3 gms of tobacco are sold to the retail customer in normal course. Revenue' case is only on the ground that larger package of the respondent, referred to as second packing or multiple piece package is intended for sale as unit in retail and MRP is required to be declared on these packages. Accordingly as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Miraj Products vs.CCE, Jaipur - 2008-TIOL-2841-CESTAT-DEL. 5. Heard both sides and examined the appeal records. The point for decision is that the respondent's liability to discharge central excise duty under section 4A. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the decision of this Tribunal in Makson Confectionary Pvt.Ltd. and held that the present case is similar to the one decided by the Tr....