9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that:- The charge of clandestine removal does not even sustain for the reason that there is no evidence to show that any amount was received by the appellant over and above the declared MRP. The adjudicating authority has completely overlooked the fact of payment of duty under Section 4A for reasons which are not forthcoming from the records. The Commissioner (Appeals) although referred to app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise Service Tax (Appeals), Allahabad. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pan masala falling under erstwhile Chapter Sub-heading 2404.49 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff, 1985. The appellant filed a declaration under Rule 173B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 declaring the value and the MRP of their final products effecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods are assessable to duty under Section 4A on the basis of maximum retail price less the abatement on declared value, in terms of Notification 13/2002 dated 01/03/2002. Therefore, the excess quantity has no relevance in this case. 4. The learned Jt. Commissioner (AR) reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 5. Heard both the sides and considered the submissions. We find that R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and above the declared MRP. The adjudicating authority has completely overlooked the fact of payment of duty under Section 4A for reasons which are not forthcoming from the records. The Commissioner (Appeals) although referred to appellant's plea of payment of duty in terms of Section 4A, however, proceeds on a different track by referring to Notifications 27/1997 and 16/1998 which fixes tari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
