2010 (9) TMI 10 - SC - Central Excise

MRP bases assessment - Section 4A - package weight 5.5 grams - exemption under Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 - Held that - in view of the decision in the matter of Central Arecanut & Cocoa Marketing & Processing Co-Op. Ltd. vs. C.C.E. Mangalore, 2008 (226) ELT 369 (Tri.-Chennai), this appeal is dismissed. - the provisions of MRP are not applicable where the package is Exempt under rule 34 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 - Valuation to be done u/s 4 - Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Kraftech Products Inc (2008 -TMI - 3484 - Supreme court) and COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus CENTRAL ARECANUT AND COCOA MARKETING & PROCESS CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED (2010 -TMI - 77500 - SUPREME COURT) and CENTRAL ARECANUT & COCOA MARKETING & PROCESSING CO-OP. LTD. Versus C.C.E. MANGLORE (2008 -TMI - 4475 - CSTAT CHENNAI)

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for intervention in CA No. 1607/2007
2. Delay condonation in CA Nos. 4005-4006/2009
3. Interpretation of exemption under Rule 34 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977
4. Dismissal of appeals based on previous court and tribunal decisions
5. Dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 1290/2007 based on previous decisions
6. Dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 5856/2006 due to low revenue involved

Issue 1: Application for intervention in CA No. 1607/2007
The Supreme Court dismissed the application for intervention in Civil Appeal No. 1607/2007.

Issue 2: Delay condonation in CA Nos. 4005-4006/2009
The delay in Civil Appeal Nos. 4005-4006 of 2009 was condoned by the Court.

Issue 3: Interpretation of exemption under Rule 34
The Court referred to a previous order where the Tribunal held that a package containing individual pieces of an article, like chocolates, each weighing 5.5 grams, qualified for exemption under Rule 34 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The Court agreed with this decision and dismissed the appeals accordingly.

Issue 4: Dismissal of appeals based on previous decisions
Based on a previous order affirming the Tribunal's decision, the Court dismissed the appeals as the issue raised was no longer res integra.

Issue 5: Dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 1290/2007
Civil Appeal No. 1290/2007 was dismissed in line with previous decisions and the Tribunal's ruling in a specific case.

Issue 6: Dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 5856/2006
The Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 5856/2006 due to the revenue involved being less than Rs. 15,000, declining to entertain the appeal while keeping the question of law open for future consideration.

The judgment highlights the importance of precedent and the application of established legal interpretations in deciding similar cases. The Court's adherence to previous decisions and the Tribunal's rulings underscores the significance of consistency and uniformity in legal outcomes.