9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 words, if the goods are cleared for home consumption they are required to affix the MRP on the packages under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act read with the relevant rules of the Packaged Commodity Rules. But in the present case, the goods were exported to Bhutan through a merchant exporter. The appellants paid the duty by mistake, so they claimed refund of Rs. 66,449/-. The Original Authority granted the refund. However the Revenue fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted 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), therefore, there is gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice. (iii) Moreover, he pointed out that as far as the goods which are exported to other countries, the Standard of Weights and Measures Act is not at all applicable. Therefore, there is no requirement for affixing the MRP. As regards valuation, there is no requirement to follow Section 4A. Therefore, the correct valuation method to be adopted is only Section 4 and hence, it was argue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 ratio is followed, the appeal by the department before the Commissioner (A) becomes not maintainable as the appeal has been filed by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise (Review) and not the original authority who adjudicated the case. 8.1 Be that as it may, as regards the merits of the case, we find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gillette India Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur (supra). Para7 and 8 of the said decision are reprod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide 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 in force. In other words, Section 4A applies only where there is statutory of affixing the MRP. Accordingly, in case a manufacturer voluntarily affixes MRP which - is not statutorily required then the excise duty on goods in such packings shall not be charged on the basis of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944." "2. The matter has been examined. Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is applicable in respect of those cases only where the manufacturer is legally obli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
