2009 (2) TMI 215

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant. Shri C.S. Lodha, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. - The respondents herein manufacture and clear 'Clinic Plus Shampoo' of 8 ml in what the department alleged was a multi-piece package in corrugated box containing 60 strips of sachets, each strip having 16 nos. of individually packaged and labelled pieces of shampoo sachets totaling 960 nos .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd Ltd., vide Order-in-Appeal No. 179/2001 dated 30-08-2001. Hence this appeal of the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the department primarily raises two grounds in its appeal - (i) that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Varnica Herbs - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 160 (Mad.), has held that when the goods are not intended to be sold either by weight or by measure as contem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nal has held that such packages qualified for exemption under Rule 34 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 from the legal requirement of declaration of retail sale price and that Section 4A of the Central Excise Act is not applicable to such packages. In the aforesaid judgment, the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court relied upon by the Revenue (in the cas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case of Alfa Packaging v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi reported in 2006 (204) E.L.T. 506, where the product in dispute was shampoo in sachets, the Tribunal has followed the Larger Bench decision in Urison Cosmetics to hold that the goods ought to have been assessed under Section 4 and not under Section 4A and this decision of the Tribunal has been upheld in 2008 (224) E.L.T. 504 (S.C. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mon commodity and to hold it otherwise would be violating the plain language of the statutory Rules. 6. Following the ratio of the above decision of the apex court which has   dealt with both grounds raised by the department, we see no merit in the  Revenue's appeal and accordingly uphold the impugned order and reject this appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
Case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X