9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le pack. In the case of Henkal Spic India Ltd. [2009 (11) TMI 574 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] there is a clear finding that the maximum price of individual cake was not visible at the time of clearance of the goods as the same has been deleted from the wrapper. The decision in the case of Godrej Industries Ltd., Vs. CCE, Mumbai (2005 (10) TMI 298 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) is also of no help as in that case also the wrapper of each soap in addition had a MRP clearly struck out with a declaration individual cake not intended for retail sale branded thereto and each wrapper also indicated that the scheme Buy 2, Get 1 Free followed by a pack of 3 (3x75 Gms) MRP ₹ 27/- (inclusive of all taxes). Thus factual findings of the adjudicating authority in thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Swastik Surfactants Ltd., on job work basis. The said products are covered under the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the assessee discharged the duty liability on the MRP less abatement granted as per provisions. The assessee filed price declarations, wherein it was declared the MRP of three packs in multi-pack of Shikakai soap as Rs.24/- as a special offer. The adjudicating authority held that the assessee s claim to discharge duty on combined pack of three individual soap cakes of Shikakai brand @ Rs.24/- is not acceptable and held that the assessee has to discharge the duty @ Rs.36/- for the pack of three cakes of soap less admissible abatement. The said order was challenged by the assessee, which was confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be sold separately. He also submitted that there is no allegation against the assessee that they have cleared any individual cake of soap separately. He further submitted that the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are wrongly implemented to their case. Further, he relied on the decisions in the case of CCE, Mumbai Vs. Godrej Soaps Ltd., reported in 2006 (198) ELT 450 (Tri-Mumbai), CCE, Tiruchirapalli Vs. Henkal Spic India Ltd., reported in 2010 (251) ELT 287 (Tri-Chennai) and Godrej Industries Ltd., Vs. CCE, Mumbai-II, reported in 2006 (194) ELT 356 (Tri-Mumbai). He also relied on the explanation 2 (a) of the Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and finally requested that the order of enhancing value on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al pack will be destroyed and the soap cake is not capable of sale as the individual pack as the wrapper of multi-pack is affixed on the two sides of the multi-pack and the same can not be easily removed. It is not disputed that the MRP printed on individual soap cake is not visible and the same is not deleted or detached. The CBEC Circular dated 28/10/2002 reads as under:- 1. I am directed to invite your attention to Board s Circular No. 639/30/2002-CX., dated 24-5-2002 [2002 (142) E.L.T. T33] regarding Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. A number of representations have been received from Trade? Associations as well as field formations about difficulties in implementing the said Circular. 3. The matter has been ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isible (e.g. soaps, powders, tooth pastes etc.). Only then can Explanation 2(a) to section 4A apply. (iii) if the individual items have MRP's printed on them but are scored out, then the MRP printed on the multi-pack will be taken for purposes of valuation under section 4A. (iv) if an individual item is supplied free in the multi-pack and has no MRP printed on it, the MRP printed on the multi-pack will be taken for purposes of valuation under section 4A. 5. Multi-piece package has been defined in Rule 2(j) of The? Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 . Rule 17 of the said Rules mentions the additional declaration required to be made on multi-piece packages. 6. This Circular may be brought to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant to the facts of this case. Accordingly, in the factual findings of the adjudicating authority in this case, we find that the assessee has failed to make out any case. Accordingly, we hold that the order of adjudicating authority that the assessee has to discharge the duty @ Rs.36/- for a pack of three soaps less admissible abatement is confirmed. Further, as the issue involved in this case is of interpretation of the correct value of the product and no allegation of fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention of the provisions of law with an intent to evade duty are made out, no penalty is imposable in this case. 10. With these observations, the appeal filed by the assessee is rejected and the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
