2017 (2) TMI 973 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - sale of chewing tobacco in pouches - valuation to be done as per Section 4A instead of Section 4 of the CEA - Held that - 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 (3) TMI 12 - Supreme court wherein it has been held as assessee are required to pay duty as per Section 4 if the weight of pouch is less than 10 Gms - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the respondent is liable to pay duty on chewing tobacco packed in pouches weighing less than 10 Gms under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order concerning the duty liability of a manufacturer selling chewing tobacco in pouches less than 10 Gms. The Revenue contended that duty should be paid under Section 4A of the Act due to the packaging. However, the Adjudicating Authority demanded duty under Section 4. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order, citing that the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules do not apply to goods sold in pouches weighing less than 10 Gms. The Revenue appealed, referencing a decision by the High Court of Madras.

The Tribunal considered the settled issue of duty payment for goods packed in pouches weighing less than 10 Gms. It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Vapi Vs. Kraftech Products and a previous decision by the Tribunal. Both instances concluded that duty should be paid under Section 4 when the pouch weight is less than 10 Gms. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the respondent is liable to pay duty as per Section 4 of the Act, upholding the impugned order and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision clarified the duty liability of the respondent for chewing tobacco packed in pouches weighing less than 10 Gms. The judgment relied on established legal precedents and previous decisions to determine the appropriate section under which duty should be paid. By aligning with the Supreme Court's and its own previous rulings, the Tribunal affirmed that duty should be paid under Section 4 in such cases, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.