9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : A.K. Srivastava, Member (T)]. Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The two stay petitions have been filed by M/s. Twinkle Lamps Industries (P) Ltd., against the order-in-appeal No. 96 97-C.E/NOIDA/2007 dated 29-8-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). 3. The Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned orders, has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be assessed under Section 4A or Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 7. The case relates to the period 1999-2000, 2001 -2002 and 2002-2003. 8. Prima-facie, we find that the appellants case is covered by the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Jayanti Food Processing (P) Ltd., v. CCE reported in 2007 (215) E.L.T. 327 (S.C.) in which the Supreme Court has observed that Section 4A was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 4A(1) and (2) of the Central Excise Act. (i) The goods should be excisable goods; (ii) They should be such as are sold in the package; (iii) There should be requirement in the SWM Act or Rules made thereunder or any other law to declare the price of such goods relating to their retail price on the package; (iv) The Central Government must have specified such goods by n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... official gazette. As all these criteria appear to have been satisfied, the valuation of the impugned goods, it seems will be as per the declared retail sale price on the package less the amount of abatement. Therefore, the impugned goods prima facie seem to be correctly assessable to duty under Section 4A of the Act. 9. The appellants have prima facie made a strong case for the total waiver of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
