9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... j, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri Tarun Kumar, AR PER: ASHOK JINDAL The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of pesticides and insecticides of less than 10 gms/10 ml. The appellant's unit is located n the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The said packages were packed in bigger boxes of 15-20 packs and on the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y paid under section 4A of the Act. He took support of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and rules thereunder to say that the retail package which are intended for retail sale for ultimate consumer for the purpose of consumption of the commodity contained therein. Admittedly, it these goods have been meant for retail sale, they are required affix MRP in terms of Standards of Weights ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In an similar set of facts in the case of Radha Tobacco Company (supra), this Tribunal has observed as under:- 7. The consequent point for consideration is whether the multi-piece packs from the factory are intended for retail sale as claimed by the appellant and whether such goods intended for retail sale are required to be printed with Maximum Retail Price under the Standards of Weights & Mea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tent of the goods secured by packaging. As the consumer is the beneficiary, the enforcement of this mandate is effected only at the point of retail sale Commercial consideration may require more than one intermediary between the factory of production and point of retail sale. Packaging is as much a property of the manufacturer as the produce itself. That selfinterest is sufficient to enforce the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the producers of the goods and owner brand to market the multi-pack is apparent from the Rules. 7. Considering the fact that the appellant have made packages for retail sale, they are legally bound to affix MRP of the said goods. In the circumstances, the appellant is required to discharge duty in terms of Section 4A of the Act. Therefore, the appellant has correctly discharged the duty liabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
