Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Hiran Tobacco Factory vs Kanpur on 20 July, 2018

 IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
                   TRIBUNAL
                REGIONAL BENCH : ALLAHABAD
                        COURT No. I

              APPEAL Nos.E/53283 & 53354/2014-EX[DB]

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. KNP-EXCUS-000-COM-031-13-14
dated 28/02/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs,
Kanpur)

Shri Himanshu Shukla &
M/s Hiran Tobacco Factory                               Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Kanpur           Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Krishna Kant, Advocate for Appellants Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Supdt (AR), for Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 20/07/2018 Date of Decision : 20/07/2018 FINAL ORDER NOs-71675-71676 / 2018 Per: Archana Wadhwa The issue involved in the present appeals is as to whether the small packets of chewing tobacco being less than 10gms weight each would be liable for duty as assessed in terms of Section 4 or the provisions of Section 4 A would attract.

2. We find that the said issue stands decided by the various decisions of the Tribunal as also by the Hon'ble 2 APPEAL Nos.E/53283 & 53354/2014-EX[DB] Supreme Court. Reference can be made to the following decisions:-

 Swan Sweets Pvt. Ltd.-2006 (198) ELT 565 (Tri.-
Mumbai)  CCE, Rajkot Vs Makson Confectionery Pvt. Ltd.-
2010 (259) ELT 5 (SC)  Central Arecanut & Cocoa Mktg. & Processing Co.op Ltd. Vs CCE 2008 (226) ELT 369 (Tri.- Chennai)  Kuber Khaini Ltd. Vs CCE, Delhi-2013 (295) ELT 558 (T.-Delhi).

3. Learned Advocate also brings to our notice that subsequently Commissioner has herself dropped the demand for the subsequent period raised against them on the identical issue. He draws our attention to Order-in-Original No.KNP-EXCUS-000-Comm.-029-034-15-16 dated 25.01.2016.

4. Learned A.R. appearing for the revenue agrees that the issue stands covered by the above decision of Commissioner.

5. In view of the same, we set aside the impugned order and allow both the appeals with consequential relief, if any.

(Dictated in Court) (Anil G. Shakkarwar) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) akp