Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (6) TMI 914

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... clearly observed that the essential constituents are synthetic organic surface active agents or soaps or mixtures thereof and the same were found to be present in the sample. The subsidiary constituents like builders, boosters, fillers and ancillaries were missing. In these circumstances, it is felt that the Commissioner has simply ignored the reports of the independent laboratory. To that extent, the order of the Commissioner is not a speaking order. Resham Brand bathing bar/soap - Held that:- It is seen that the product has been described as a bathing soap and, therefore, the same need not be tested for the description laundry soap. The Chemical Examiner has ruled out the description carbolic soap and thus, the only claim of appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 8/88-CE dated 1.3.1988, which exempted the above mentioned manufactured goods from whole of Central Excise duty. The appellant satisfied the other condition of the said notification and the same was not in challenge. The appellants were also eligible for small scale exemption. Learned Counsel pointed out that the demand has been raised in respect of (i) Silky brand liquid hand wash/liquid soap, (ii) Resham brand bathing bars/soap (iii) Kranti Concentrated Floor Cleaner, (iv) Charkha Bartan Bar/soap, (v) Kranti Black Phenyl. However, the appellants are challenging only items of (i) Silky brand liquid hand wash/liquid soap, (ii) Resham brand bathing bars/soap. 3. Learned Counsel pointed out that item Silky brand liquid hand wash/liquid s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vernment approved testing laboratory). However, the report was not considered by the Commissioner. 3.2 He argued that the second report dated 19.10.2002 of the Chemical Examiner was no result of any testing but was simple an opinion. 3.3 The second issue relates to the item Resham Brand bathing bars/soap, the sample of the said product was also sent to the Chemical Examiner to be tested for whether the sample are laundry and carbolic soap or otherwise. He pointed out that Laboratory report shown that is composed of sodium salt of fatty acid (soap), fragrances and inorganic fillers. It is other than carbolic soap. He argued that there is no finding of the fact that it is not laundry soap. He pointed out that laundry soaps are exempte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ical Examiner dated 19.10.2012 also dismissed the appellant s claim that the goods are synthetic detergent. 4.1 Learned AR further pointed out that the Resham Brand Bar/soap is obviously not a laundry soap as the same is being sold as bathing bar. He argued that in this circumstances, the only thing that was required to be established that it is not carbolic soap. The entry under the notification read laundry and carbolic soap. In these circumstances, bathing soaps get excluded unless the same are of the carbolic soap variety. 5. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that principally two items have been contested (i) Silky brand liquid hand wash/liquid soap, (ii) Resham brand bathing bars/soap. The exemption is availab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... were found to be present in the sample. The subsidiary constituents like builders, boosters, fillers and ancillaries were missing. In these circumstances, it is felt that the Commissioner has simply ignored the reports of the independent laboratory. To that extent, the order of the Commissioner is not a speaking order. 5.1 In so far as the item Resham Brand bathing bar/soap is concerned, the Chemical Examiner in his report dated 20.9.2012 has described it is other than carbolic soap. The contention of the appellant is that the same has not been tested for laundry soap and for synthetic detergent. It is seen that the product has been described as a bathing soap and, therefore, the same need not be tested for the description laundry soap. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates