9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal-I) Ahmedabad of the disputes, one pertains to availment of CENVAT credit of Rs.. 32,510/- on 'toothbrushes' procured between 13th March 2006 and 28th November 2006for free supply along with toothpaste, the second to valuation of cosmetics manufactured by them and cleared as free samples and the third to valuation of double pack of toothpaste as sales promotion. The differential duty arising from valuation of free samples and the undischarged liability to duty on the second tooth paste was ascertained to be Rs. 1,37,626/- by the original authority. 2. Placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II v. Acme Healthcare - [2009 (235) ELT 682 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof as the correct assessable value; consequently, the definition of inputs in rule 2 (k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be extended to such toothbrush for availment of CENVAT credit. 5. It is the claim of the appellant that cosmetics cleared as free samples, not being for sale, should be subjected to assessment under section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is not in dispute that cosmetics are statutorily mandated for the printing of maximum retail price on the product with appendant liability to be assessed under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In re Acme Healthcare, the Tribunal accepted the claim of the manufacturer that the clearances were of samples, declared and indicated as such, owing to which it was held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es between 5th June 2005 and 2nd February 2006 was restricted to only one of the pair with discharge of duty liability of Rs. 48,754/- on the other yet to fulfilled. It is mere presumption that the maximum retail price should correspondingly be doubled for assessment. Whether the tooth paste is sold as a single piece, or intended for sale is as a pair, is best left as a business decision of the manufacturer and, to the extent that the price has been declared on the package containing the combined set, the assessable value cannot be enhanced without any evidence of additional consideration flowing back. There is no evidence on record that duty has been discharged on value less than the retail price declared for the combination. In these circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Act and not under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act and not under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal relied upon the Board Circular No. 625/16/2002-CX, dt. 28-2-2002 6. Further, in case of Rallis India Ltd. v. CCE Nagpur reported in 2007 (212) E.L.T. 103 (Tribunal) = 2007-TIOL-324-CESTATMum, it was held that the small boxes of pesticides cleared by the assessee for free supply to farmers along with BT cotton seeds are required to be assessed under Section 4 and not under Section 4A of the Act. It was also held that the Board's circular had not been withdrawn and as per the settled law, Revenue cannot challenge the provisions contained in the circular. The same view was reiterated by the Tribunal in case of CCE, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
