2016 (8) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on MRP basis under notification no. 13/2002-CE(NT) dated 13.02 issued under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, after availing 50% abatement from MRP as per Sl. No. 18(A) of the said notification. The Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Kothari Products Ltd. Vs. CCE Shillong 2003 160 ELT 699 held that Pan Masala not containing tobacco and beetle nut not more than 10% was excluded from the purview of notification no. 10/98-CE(NT) dated 02.06.1998. Accordingly, the valuation was to be done in terms of the section 4 of the Central Excise Act 1944 and not under section 4A ibid. In the light of above decision of the Honble Tribunal the appellants filed refund claims before the Assistant Commissioner which were held to be admissible on merit. Fur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Duty 1 497 27.05.2002 1938.00 440.00 440.00 633.00 1513.00 3451.00 2226.45 Duty Payable U/s.4 Excess Duty paid refundable Cenvat SED NCD Total Duty Cenvat SED NCD Total Duty 356.00 356.00 512.00 1224.00 84.00 84.00 121.00 209.00 He placed relevance mainly on the following case laws: i. Girish Foods & Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE Pune-2007 (211) ELT 388 (Trib). ii. Dupen Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CCE 2014 (301) ELT 344 (Tri) iii. Karnataka Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Vs. CCE 1996 (83) ELT 114 (Tri). iv. CCE Vs. Crane Betel Nut Powder 2009 (15) STR 527 (Tri). 4.      The Ld. DR on the other hand argued that simply because MRP has remained constant it cannot be presumed that the inci....