9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B.N. Gururaj, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K. Sambi Reddi, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 112/2006-C.E. dated 25-10-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals-I), Bangalore. 2. Shri B.N. Gururaj, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddi appeared for the Revenue. 3. We heard both sides. 4. The learned advocate urged the following points after stating the brief facts of the case. The issue involved is the correct valuation of the goods exported by the appellants to Bhutan. The goods are actually instant noodles and cup noodles. They are covered under Section 4A. In other w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (A) in his order has relied on the Bhutanese Commodity Package Rules which requires affixation of the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) in order to value the goods. The learned advocate said that the Bhutanese Law cannot be made applicable to the impugned goods. As far as the appellant is concerned, he is not subject to any foreign law. It is for the Bhutanese Government to stipulate any valuation rules in respect of the commodities imported and exported by that country and appellant would not be subject to such laws. Therefore, the reliance by the Commissioner (A) on the Bhutanese Laws is not legal and correct. He further stated that the appellants had not been put to notice regarding the reliance of the Bhutanese laws by Commissioner (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated that the appellate authority cannot read the foreign act into the Indian legislation. Further, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gillette India Ltd. v. CCE Jaipur - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 3 (Tri.-Del.), wherein it has been held that in respect of goods which are exported, the valuation has to be done only under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and not under Section 4A. 8. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the Larger Bench in the case CCE C, Surat-I v. Pradeep Kumar Shyam Sukha cited by the learned advocate interpreting Section 35E(2) has held that the authority to be authorized to file an appeal must be only the adjudicating authority and not any other authority. When this ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 4A(1) of the Act. In this connection, we also note that the scope of assessment under Section 4A had been clarified by the C.B.E. C. vide Circular No. 411/44/98-CX, dated 31-7-1998 and Circular No. 625/16/02-CX, dated 28-2- 2002. A common position in both the circulars is that Section 4A applies only when there are statutory requirements for affixing MRP and not in the case of other goods. We read Para 2 of Circulars: "2. Instructions were issued by the Board vide Letter F. No. 341 /64/97-TRU, dated 11th August 1997, clarifying that sub-section (1) of Section 4A applies only when the MRP is required to be indicated under the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 or under any other law for the time being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
