9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate for the respondent Per: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Revenue is in appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of pickle and ketchup. Their product is covered under Notification no. 46-20/95-CE(NT) dated 28.2.1999 issued under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It has been alleged that the respondent has cleared the man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 46-20/95 the product in dispute was covered under MRP based value and the respondent are required to fix MRP on their product and to pay duty accordingly which respondent has failed to do so.Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Anjali, advocate, ld. counsel for the respondent appeared and submitted that the respondents are manufacturing the pickles/ketc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction value is available, therefore, they have paid the duty as per section 4 of the Act. Therefore the lower appellate authority has rightly held that valuation as per section 4A is not required for clearance of pickles which are for free distribution and not for retail sale. Therefore, the impugned order is to be upheld. 6. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 7. We find that as pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cleared the goods on transaction value to M/s Nestle and same has been clarified by the Board circular no. 625/15/02-CE dated 28.2.2002, we hold that the respondent have correctly valued their product which has been confirmed by the lower appellate authority. Therefore we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Same is upheld. Appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. (Opera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
