9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and Measurements (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977. - E/126/2006-EX(BR) - 760/2009-EX(PB), - Dated:- 2-9-2009 - S/Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) and Rakesh kumar, Member (T) Shri Sunil Kumar, SDR, for the Appellant. S/Shri Vevek Kohli and Ashwani Sharma, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order per: D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. - Revenue is on a limited issue as to whether chewing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purpose of valuation. It is appropriate to extract para 7 of the order of learned First Appellate Authority for convenience of reading:- "At the outset I find that there is no dispute to the fact that the appellant have been selling chewing tobacco in pouches of 5 gms, 9 gms, 10 gms and 25 gms and the department has no ol4ection whatsoever on the assessments in respect of pouches of chewing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commodity is of old by weight only. Thus, I find that 5 gms and 9 gms pouches of chewing tobacco are outside the purview of SWM Rules by virtue of the exemption contained in the Rule 34(b) of SWM Rules. In view of the above, I find that it is not required under the SWM Act and SWM Rules made thereunder to affix the MRP on the subject product and in view of Board's Circular No. 625/16/2002-CX date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tent from pan 10 of his order. 3. Learned SDR Shri Sumit Kumar submits that when the goods were cleared by the respondents under the Weight and Measures Law, they are subjected to Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. He relies on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Varnica Herbs v. CBEC New Delhi reported in 2004(163) E.L.T. 160 (Mad.) to contend so. 4. Heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rix read with Rule and the law laid down by the Apex Court in para 23 of the judgment in the case of CCE, Vapi v. Kraftech Products reported in 2008 (224) LUL 504 (SC) we agree with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and his order is not liable to be disturbed since he has held that valuation of goods in this case is to be governed by Section 4 of Central Excise Act. 1944. Accordingly, Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
