2017 (2) TMI 430

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of central excise duty on the alleged manufacture of 'pizzas' at these outlets. The thrust of the case was that heading no 2001 10 and 1601 10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff, 1985 is a precise description of the food served at these outlets of M/s Domino's Pizza India Ltd and, these being put up in unit containers, are chargeable to duty owing to note in section IV; and that the use of the brand name 'Domino's' on all the containers would deprive them of the benefit of small-scale exemption rendering each of the outlets to be liable to duty. The demand was restricted to 'non-vegetarian pizzas' and 'chicago wings' which, being 'preparations of meat' (1601 10) were dutiable at 16% during the period from 2000-10 to 2004-05 with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the matter was remanded back to the original authority pointing out various flaws in the adjudication order. In short, the credibility of the findings was questioned as careful consideration of the various submissions that could lead to a different classification of the three items did not appear to have been undertaken, the submissions on the actual process of making smaller packs was not examined and the adoption of total value of sales appeared to be unreliable owing to the sales being primarily of 'home deliveries.' 4. Learned Authorized Representative urged us to decide the matter on the lines suggested by the competent Committee of Commissioners. He placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... questioning the invalidation of the computation of assessable value on the ground of fresh evidence having been brought to bear which is alleged to be in contravention of rule 5(1) of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001. While the respondent may, indeed, have led fresh evidence before the appellate authority, the finding in the impugned order flows from perceptible non-compliance with section 4 which is a legal issue that can be raised at any time. We do not find any impropriety in the impugned order. 7. The maintainability of this appeal must also be discussed. The value in dispute is less than the threshold of Rs. 10,00,000/- prescribed in the instruction of 17th December 2015 issued in F No 390/Misc/163/2010-JC of Government of India ....