9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate slabs whereas the ruling by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE KANPUR VERSUS M/S. TRIMURTY FRAGRANCES (P) LTD. [2015 (11) TMI 320 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], clarified the law stating that if Gutkha with different MRPs are manufactured on the same machine when such MRPs fall within the same slab then it cannot be treated as two separate machines for fastening duty liability on the manufacturer. Demand not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/CROSS/50251/2015 in APPEAL Nos. E/50782 & 50933/2014-EX[DB] - A/71743-71744/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 3-8-2018 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri A.K. Prasad, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontention for the period from November, 2010 to January, 2011, another demand of Central Excise duty of ₹ 37.50 lakhs was raised. On contest both the demands were adjudicated through the impugned Order-in-Original. The Learned Original Authority dropped the demand of ₹ 37.50 lakhs holding that during the said period manufacturer appellant manufactured Gutkha of only one MRP on the same machine. The Learned Original Authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 50 lakhs for the months of Mach, May, August and October, 2010 holding that during the said months on the same machine Gutkha having MRP of ₹ 1.00 and that of ₹ 0.50 were manufactured during the same month and dropped the demand for ₹ 93,17,397/- holding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld amount to use of one single pouch packing machine. He has submitted that the rate of duty for packing machine as per Notification No.42/2008-CE dated 01.07.2008 for Gutkha having RSP per pouch up to ₹ 1.00 is under one slab and therefore, applying the ruling by Hon'ble High Court, in the present case RSP of ₹ 1.00 and RSP of ₹ 0.50 cannot be treated as separate RSPs and as a result there would be no new RSP requiring deemed addition of packing machine. He further submitted that since the basis of show cause notice is not sustainable, the appeal filed by revenue is not sustainable. 4. Heard the learned A.R. for revenue who has submitted that the Original Authority has erred in dropping the demand for the month of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
