2017 (8) TMI 1742 - AT - Central Excise

Method of valuation - whether the assessment of Scented Supari is to be made under section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 on MRP declared on the multi-piece packages or under section 4 of the said Act? - HELD THAT - In the appellant s own case M/S A.R.S CO VERSUS COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHY 2015 (10) TMI 354 - SC ORDER , the Hon ble Supreme Court had held that the process of crushing of betel nuts into smaller pieces and sweetening the same with essential/non-essential oils, menthol, sweetening agents etc., does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, the issue whether section 4 or 4A has to be applied for arriving at the assessable value has no relevance for consideration in this appeal. The impugned order is set aside. Conclusion - The process of crushing of betel nuts into smaller pieces and sweetening the same with essential/non-essential oils, menthol, sweetening agents etc., does not amount to manufacture. The issue whether section 4 or 4A has to be applied for arriving at the assessable value has no relevance for consideration in this appeal. Appeal allowed.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai addressed the issue of whether the assessment of Scented Supari should be made under section 4A or section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, based on the MRP declared on multi-piece packages. The appellant argued, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Crane Betel Nut Works Vs Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, that the process of crushing betel nuts does not constitute "manufacture," thus negating the need for excise duty and rendering the question of applying section 4 or 4A irrelevant. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in the appellant's own case, confirming that the process does not amount to manufacture. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.