9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 1397 - AT - Central ExciseMethod of valuation - to be valued on MRP basis under Section 4 A or under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 - sugar confectionery falling under chapter heading under 1704.90 and 1804.90 being manufactured by the appellant, the individual piece weighing less than 10 grams per piece and the same are packed in 500 grams pack - HELD THAT - The same issue decided in the appellant s own case SWAN SWEETS PVT LTD VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -RAJKOT 2023 (7) TMI 538 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that ' In the identical facts in the appellant s own case SWAN SWEETS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAJKOT 2006 (1) TMI 269 - CESTAT, MUMBAI it was held that wholesale pack of 500 grams to 1 kg is not retail pack and therefore taking the weight of individual piece of confectionery which is less than 10 grams will not be governed under Section 4A.' In view of the above decision in the appellant s own case the issue is no longer res-integra - the impugned orders are not sustainable and the same are set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues:
Interpretation of Central Excise Act regarding valuation of sugar confectionery weighing less than 10 grams per piece packed in 500 grams packs under Section 4 A or Section 4. Detailed Analysis: The judgment revolves around the issue of whether sugar confectionery, individually weighing less than 10 grams per piece and packed in 500 grams packs, should be valued under Section 4 A or Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that based on previous tribunal orders and a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, products weighing less than 10 grams do not require affixing retail sale price under Rule 34(b) of SWM (PC) Rules, 1977. The tribunal referred to earlier decisions in the appellant's own case and ruled that such products fall outside the ambit of Section 4A. The judgment emphasized that despite amendments in Rule 2(j) of SWM (PC) Rules, 1977, the principle established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court remains unaffected, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal. The tribunal also clarified that Section 11D of the Act applies only if duty is collected and not deposited, which was not the case here as the appellant issued credit notes for the differential duty, rendering the demand under Section 11D unsustainable. The judgment extensively cited previous tribunal orders and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the appellant's own case to establish a legal precedent. It highlighted that the weight of individual confectionery items below 10 grams falls outside the purview of Section 4A, as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The tribunal's analysis focused on the interpretation of Rule 34(b) of SWM (PC) Rules, 1977, to determine the requirement of affixing retail sale price for products weighing less than 10 grams. By examining the legislative provisions and legal precedents, the tribunal concluded that the appellant's products should not be valued under Section 4A, leading to the allowance of the appellant's appeal and the dismissal of the revenue's appeal. Furthermore, the judgment delved into the application of Section 11D of the Act concerning the collection and deposit of excise duty. It clarified that Section 11D is applicable only when duty is collected but not deposited, which was not the scenario in the present case. The tribunal's detailed analysis of Section 11D emphasized that the appellant's issuance of credit notes for the differential duty indicated that the duty was not collected from customers, thereby rendering the demand confirmed under Section 11D unsustainable. This aspect of the judgment provided a comprehensive understanding of the legal provisions governing the collection and deposit of excise duty, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appellant's appeal and the dismissal of the revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the judgment meticulously addressed the valuation of sugar confectionery products under the Central Excise Act, the interpretation of relevant rules, and the application of Section 11D in the context of duty collection and deposit. By relying on established legal principles and precedents, the tribunal provided a thorough analysis that resulted in the setting aside of the impugned orders and the allowance of the appeals based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the appellant's own case.
|
