2009 (1) TMI 227 - AT - Central Excise

Transaction value versus MRP based Valuation Multi piece package Multilevel Marketing (MLM) - three products in dispute are car wash, G&H body shampoo and Satinique 2-in-1 shampoo - Rule 34 of PC Rules which provides that nothing contained in PC Rules shall apply to a package if the net weight or measure of the commodity is 10 gms or 10 ml if sold by weight or measure. - Rule 2(j) defines multi piece package which are excluded from exemption under Rule 34. - Rule 2(x) defines wholesale package - The contention of the appellants is that the packages in dispute are covered by the definition of wholesale package and therefore they are excluded from the application of PC Rules in view of the fact that provisions are applicable only to packages intended for retail sale. Rule 2(x) makes it clear that to be classified as a wholesale package; the package must be intended for sale, distribution or delivery to an intermediary. No evidence has been put forth by the Revenue to show that the packages in dispute are being sold directly to the-ultimate consumers. Demand set aside.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad heard a case concerning a manufacturer of toiletries and cosmetics whose products were marketed by Amway. The dispute involved three products: car wash, G&H body shampoo, and Satinique 2-in-1 shampoo. The manufacturer initially packaged 30 sachets in a mono carton box, which was marked as a "Wholesale Pack." After April 2003, they began packing sachets directly into a shipper, with 540 to 900 sachets per shipper, also marked as a "Wholesale Pack." The manufacturer paid excise duty under the Central Excise Act at the time of removal. Amway sold the products to distributors, who then sold them to consumers. The dispute arose from show cause notices issued for a demand of differential duty and a penalty totaling Rs. 2,29,89,046. The manufacturer argued that the packages were wholesale packs, not multi-piece packages, and therefore exempt from certain regulations. The tribunal agreed, citing relevant rules and previous decisions, and allowed the appeal in favor of the manufacturer.

The Judgement involved detailed analysis of the packaging of the products, the application of relevant rules, and previous tribunal decisions to determine the classification of the packages as wholesale packs, which had significant implications for excise duty liability. The ruling ultimately favored the manufacturer, providing consequential relief and setting a precedent for similar cases. The judgement was delivered by Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri B.S.V. Murthy, with Shri Hardik Modh representing the appellant and Shri S.R. Prasad representing the respondent. The detailed analysis covered various aspects of the case, including the packaging changes, excise duty payments, and the application of rules and regulations governing package classification. The ruling was significant due to the substantial financial implications for the manufacturer and the broader implications for similar cases in the future. The judgement was pronounced and pronounced in court by the tribunal members.