9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract different category of serial number under Rule 5 with higher duty liability. The retrospective amendment of the impugned provisions by Finance Act, 2014 concluded that the intention of the Government was to levy duty at the rate applicable to highest RSP on a particular machine during a particular month when during that month, on that machine, pouches of different RSPs have been produced. Giving emphasis to the harmonious reading of the various provisions of the said Rules of 2008, manufacturing of Gutkha pouches of ₹ 0.50/- is not to be considered as a new RSP for the purpose of proviso to Rule 8. Thus the demand made in the present case is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 60416 of 2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue initiated proceedings against them to re-determine the duty liability in terms of the deeming provision as per proviso to Rule 8. After a due process, the Commissioner adjudicated the case vide the impugned order and confirmed the demand of ₹ 75,00,000/- and imposed a penalty of equivalent amount. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant is before us. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta, submitted that the appellants used one single track machine to manufacture two different type of pouches with Retail Sale Price of ₹ 1/-and ₹ 0.50/- and they have paid duty on the highest Retail Sale Price of ₹ 1/- for the impugned period. The learned Counsel submitted that the appellants have paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The learned AR Shri A.K. Goswami reiterated the findings in the impugned order and stated that the provisions of Rule 8 are very clear and have been correctly given effect by the Original Authority. He further submitted even the retrospective amendment made in the said Rule by Finance Act, 2014 is applicable effective from 13/4/2010 only. In the present case, the period is prior to the effective date for retrospective amendment. As such, he submitted that the provisions of Rule 8 are to be given full effect and the duty demand has to be upheld. 5. We have heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. The dispute is relating correct amount of duty payable by the appellant as per the compounding scheme with specific referenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/- its deemed production would be 37,44,000/-. Thus, even if the machine manufactures in a month the Gutkha pouches of the 25 Paisa, 50 Paisa, 75 Paisa and ₹ 1/-, its deemed production would be 37,47,000/- pouches and not 37,44,000/- multiplied by 4. Thus, for the purpose of Rule 5, all the RSPs within a particular RSP slab are the same for the purpose of determining deemed production per month, and it is only an RSP which is different from a particular RSP slab which has to be treated as a new RSP as it would result in change of the deemed production. In our view, the term new retail sale price used to First Proviso to Rule 8 has to be understood in the same sense in which it is understood in Rule 5 and, therefore, the RSP of 0.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
