9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of the fact that the impugned goods in this case are not sold as there is no transfer of the ownership of the same and there is also no such finding to the contrary in the impugned order, by applying the above cited decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jayanti Food Processing reported in [2007 - TMI - 1560 - Supreme Court], it is evident that the provisions of Standards of Weights a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orts. Hence, with the consent of both sides, both the appeals are taken up together for hearing and disposal. The ld. Counsel states that the appellants are importers of set top boxes which are supplied free of cost to their customers of Direct to Home TV connections. The set top boxes are provided free of cost by the appellants and the ownership of the same is not transferred to the customers. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nership of the set top boxes was transferred to the customers. 3. After hearing both sides and considering the case records, and the cited case law, we find that in the cited decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jayanti Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Rajasthan (supra), it has been held as under: "It was then suggested that the free gift by Pepsi to its customers would amount to dist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Section 2(v), Rule 6(1)(f) will not be attracted and thus such package would not be governed under the provisions of SWM (PC) Rules which would clearly take such package out of the restricted arena of Section 4A(1) of the Act and would put it in the broader arena of Section 4 of the Act." 4. In view of the fact that the impugned goods in this case are not sold as there is no transfer of the ow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
