9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/1434/05 - Order No. A/94517/16/EB - Dated:- 15-12-2016 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (A.R.) for Appellant Shri Yogesh S. Patki, Advocate for respondent ORDER Per Ramesh Nair The issue involved in the present case is Refrigerators sold to Soft Drink manufacturer in bulk whether liable to be valued under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant have applied Section 4A read with Notification No. 9/2000-CE(NT) dt. 01.03.2000 accordingly discharged the excise duty on the value which is MRP minus 40% abatement. Show cause notice was issued wherein it was propo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L.T. 116 (Tri.-Del.) (iii) Bharti Telemedia Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Import), Nhava Sheva 2016 (331) E.L.T. 138 (Tri.-Mumbai) 3. At the outset, Shri Yogesh S. Patki, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that the issue is no longer res integara as in the appellant s own case for the past period this Tribunal has allowed the appeal which reported as Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Nagpur 2005 (179) ELT 214 (Tri.-Mumbai). He placed reliance on the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Jayanti Food Processing (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajasthan 2007 (215) E.L.T. 327 (S.C.). 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that since the issue involv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EL Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE reported in [2004 (163) E.L.T. 219] in which case the sale of telephones by the telephone manufacturing companies to DoT, MTNL BSNL was considered and it was held that the duty will be under Section 4A of the Act and not under Section 4. Relying on that decision, the Tribunal in Civil Appeal No. 2877/2005 has held in favour of the assessees. It is also held by the Tribunal that Rule 34(a) of SWM (PC) Rules would not be attracted in these cases. In short the Tribunal has held that these cases are identical with the cases involving the sale of telephone. We have already approved the judgment of the Tribunal pertaining to the sale of telephones in the earlier part of this judgment. We do not see any reason to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
