2017 (2) TMI 973

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te for the Respondent Per : Ashok Jindal Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent is manufacturer of chewing tobacco and selling the same in pouches less than 10 Gms. The Revenue is of the view that as the respondent is selling the chewing tobacco in pouches, therefore, they are required to pay duty as per Section 4A of the Centra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. We find that short issue before us is whether respondent is liable to pay duty on chewing tobacco packed in pouches having weight less than 10 Gms under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Act. 5. This issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the Commissioner of C. Ex., Vapi Vs. Kraftech Products - 2008 (224) E.L.T. 504 (S.C.) and respondents in their own case by....