2007 (7) TMI 24 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation (Central excise) - department contended that assessee had discharged the duty only on MRL and had evaded duty on LVD on combipack and accordingly demand were made - Held that MRP printed on the combipack should considered and accordingly demand were set aside

Summary

Issues:
- Duty demand on Liquid Vapourising Device (LVD) along with Mosquito Repellant Liquid (MRL)
- Interpretation of MRP for combination packages
- Applicability of Circular No. 673/64/2002-CX
- Comparison with relevant case laws

Analysis:
1. Duty demand on Liquid Vapourising Device (LVD) along with Mosquito Repellant Liquid (MRL):
The Commissioner alleged duty evasion on LVD by M/s. IHPPL, as duty was only paid on MRL. The MRP of Rs. 36/- printed on the package was considered to apply only to MRL, not LVD. The Tribunal referred to a similar case involving razors and blades, where duty was imposed based on the MRP of each item in the combination package. However, the Tribunal found that in the present case, the MRL and LVD were both notified for MRP-based assessment. Since LVD was always sold with MRL, the MRP of the combination package should be considered for assessment, as per Circular No. 673/64/2002-CX. Therefore, the duty demand on LVD was deemed unjustified.

2. Interpretation of MRP for combination packages:
The Tribunal emphasized that when two different consumer items subject to MRP-based assessment are sold in a combipack, the MRP printed on the combipack should be used for valuation. In this case, since LVD was not sold separately but only in a combipack with MRL, the MRP of the combipack should be the basis for assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the MRP of Rs. 36/- on the combipack, also printed on the MRL container, should be considered for the assessment of the combipack, and duty on LVD need not be separately imposed.

3. Applicability of Circular No. 673/64/2002-CX:
The Tribunal relied on Circular No. 673/64/2002-CX, which clarified the valuation of multipacks with items subject to MRP-based assessment. The circular stated that when one item in a multipack lacks an MRP, the MRP on the multipack should be used for valuation. This circular was crucial in determining the assessment of the combipack containing MRL and LVD in the present case.

4. Comparison with relevant case laws:
Various case laws were cited during the proceedings, including G.S. Enterprises v. CCE, Jaipur and CCE, Mumbai v. Godrej Industries Ltd. These cases dealt with duty assessment on combination packages and items sold together under MRP-based assessment. The Tribunal distinguished the facts of these cases from the present case, highlighting that the MRL and LVD in the combipack were both manufactured by the assessee, unlike the scenarios in the cited cases. Additionally, the Tribunal referenced the Himalaya Drug Co. case, where a similar issue regarding combination packages was settled in favor of the appellant, supporting the decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by M/s. IHPPL.