CCE & GST, Delhi-I Versus M\/s Anmol Vachan Impex, M\/s Neel Kamal Enterprises
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 785 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 11-6-2018
Appeal No. E\/50837 & 50923\/2018-SM – A\/52180-52181\/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
\nShri H.C. Saini, Shri P. Junega, DRs – for the appellant
\nShri V.R. Sethi, Advocate – for the respondent
\nPer Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
\nBoth the appeals filed by the Revenue are being decided by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the order of the original adjudicating authority.
\n2. After hearing both the sides, duly represented by Shri H.C. Saini and<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 which provides a deeming provision of manufacture if the goods are labelled or relabelled and includes the declaration or alteration of retail sale price to render the products marketable to the consumers. Based upon the same, proceedings were initiated against the respondents resulting in passing of an order by the original adjudicating authority, confiscating the goods and imposing redemption fine and penalties. Surprisingly, though the original adjudicating authority held that the process of removing of MRP amounts to manufacture, but no duty of excise was confirmed against the respondent. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n w revised MRP was affixed. Supply of Price list has also not been correlated with revision of MRP. Thus, the criteria of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act has not been fulfilled to claim dutiability and hence liability to confiscation of the goods.” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" CCE & GST, Delhi-I Versus M\/s Anmol Vachan Impex, M\/s Neel Kamal EnterprisesCentral Excise2018 (6) TMI 785 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 11-6-2018Appeal No. E\/50837 & 50923\/2018-SM – A\/52180-52181\/2018-SM[BR]Central ExciseMrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Shri H.C. Saini, Shri P. Junega, DRs – for the appellant Shri V.R. Sethi, Advocate – … Continue reading “CCE & GST, Delhi-I Versus M\/s Anmol Vachan Impex, M\/s Neel Kamal Enterprises”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12261","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12261","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12261"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12261\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12261"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12261"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12261"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order by observing that removal of MRP sticker, without<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. As against the above findings of Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue is in appeal.
\n6. I find that there is no dispute on the facts. The entire case of the Revenue is limited to the allegation that the assessee removed the MRP sticker. There is no further allegation that any new MRP sticker were affixed to the goods in question. Admittedly, the provisions of Section 2(f)(iii) provides deemed manufacture definition only when the goods are labelled or relabelled or MRP is al<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n