2003 (11) TMI 153 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Compliance with terms of interim order for depositing 50% of confirmed demand under Section 35F of the Act.
- Interpretation of Packaged Commodities Rules regarding marking of MRP on 8 ml sachets of shampoo.
- Applicability of Board's Circular and Department of Metrology's clarification.
- Discrepancy in duty amount compared to a similar case involving M/s. Anabond Ltd.

Comprehensive Analysis:

1. Compliance with Interim Order: The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as the appellants failed to comply with the interim order directing them to deposit 50% of the confirmed demand of Rs. 4,31,71,027/-. The issue was whether the appellants should be required to pre-deposit any amount for hearing the appeal.

2. Interpretation of Packaged Commodities Rules: The appellants argued that as per Section 34 of the Packaged Commodities Rules, the 8 ml shampoo sachets were exempt from marking with MRP provisions. They relied on a Board's Circular and a clarification from the Department of Metrology regarding the packaging of the sachets. They also cited a favorable order by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a similar matter involving M/s. Anabond Ltd.

3. Discrepancy in Duty Amount: A report filed by the department highlighted a significant difference in duty amount between the present case and the case of M/s. Anabond Ltd. The duty involved in the present case was substantial, amounting to Rs. 4.32 crores, compared to a much lower duty of Rs. 53,500 in the case of M/s. Anabond Ltd.

4. Decision and Remand: The Tribunal, after careful consideration, found that the appellants had made a strong case on merits. They observed that the sachet size of 8 ml did not align with the Board's circular requiring a 10 gm sachet. Additionally, the Department of Metrology's clarification and the favorable order in the case of M/s. Anabond Ltd. supported the appellants' contentions. As a result, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration without requiring the appellants to pre-deposit any amount. The impugned order was set aside, and the stay application was disposed of accordingly.