9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Order-in-Appeal dated 19/04/2011 is correct interpretation of the provision of said proviso to Rule 8 of PMPM Rules, 2008 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/1792/2011-EX[SM], E/CROSS/181/2011 - A/70762/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 28-7-2017 - Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR), for Appellant Shri Anurag Mishra, Advocate, for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is filed by Revenue Order-in-Appeal No.133-CE/LKO/2011 dated 19/04/2011 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax (Appeals), Lucknow. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of machine and they manufacture both Pan Masala with and without containing tobacco of same MRP of ₹ 5/- and therefore, the said Rule 8 of PMPM Rules, 2008 was not invokable in their case. The Original Authority did not appreciate the arguments and confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty. Aggrieved by the said order respondent preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The Id. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the appeal through impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 19/04/2011. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the legal provision is very clear by employing the word new Retail Sale Price implying that there was some old Retail Sale Price in relation to manufacture of goods on an existing machine and that provision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 30/2008-CE(NT) is not at all determined by the nature of specified goods. (iii) The case of department rests on the assumption that only because two different notified goods were manufactured on the same machine during the period, their Retail Sale Prices get changed and the deeming provision relating to new Retail Sale Price gets attracted. Facts of the case as also the legal provisions do not at all warrant this assumption. 10. The decision of Commissioner (Appeals) is based on the fact that only 'one Retail Sale Price i.e. ₹ 5/-' alone was there and the fact relating to manufacture of Pan Masala Gutkha both of RSP ₹ 5/- stood declared. Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that two d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
