9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1167 - AT - Central ExciseValuation of goods - Section 4 or 4A - assessment of duty on the sugar confectionery Nestle Eclairs and Nestle Milk Bar Eclairs manufactured and cleared in pet jars and poly packs whether under Section 4 or under Section 4A - Held that - apex court order is relied by the Tribunal in the case of Sampre Nutrition Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad reported in 2013 (6) TMI 448 - CESTAT BANGALORE and distinguished by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Roys Industries Ltd. (2010 (9) TMI 257 - CESTAT, BANGALORE). Commissioner in his impugned order has rightly dropped the proceedings by relying on the Tribunal s order dated 25.01.2006 and the said Tribunal order now stands upheld by the Apex Court. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Adjudicating authority. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues: Assessment of duty on sugar confectionery Nestle Eclairs and Nestle Milk Bar Eclairs under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act.
Analysis: The Revenue filed an appeal against the Commissioner's order regarding the assessment of duty on sugar confectionery products. The central issue was whether the duty should be assessed under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The Adjudicating authority, in the impugned order, relied on a previous Tribunal order and concluded that the duty was correctly allowed and paid under Section 4. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal order had not attained finality as their appeal was pending before the Supreme Court. The Tribunal examined the details provided by the Adjudicating authority and referred to relevant case laws to support its decision. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had dismissed the Revenue's appeals in similar cases, indicating that the issue was no longer res integra. The Tribunal specifically mentioned the case of Swan Sweets Pvt. Ltd. where the Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision regarding the assessment of duty on confectionery products. The Tribunal also referred to other cases where similar issues were addressed and decided in favor of the taxpayers. The Tribunal emphasized that the Adjudicating authority rightly relied on the Tribunal's order, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and upheld the impugned order. The decision was based on the consistent legal precedent established by previous judgments, including those of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal concluded that there was no infirmity in the Adjudicating authority's order, and therefore rejected the Revenue's appeal. In summary, the Tribunal's decision clarified the assessment of duty on sugar confectionery products under the Central Excise Act, specifically whether it should be done under Section 4 or Section 4A. By relying on relevant case laws and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating authority's order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The decision provided a clear legal interpretation based on established precedents and highlighted the importance of consistent application of tax laws in similar cases.
|
