TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se duty and education cess totalling Rs 1,04,32,970/- under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act '44 (the Act) along with interest thereon from M/s. Icon Household Products Pvt. Ltd (hereafter IHPPL). He also imposed penalty under Section 11AC on M/s. IHPPL equal to the duty amount demanded. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. IHPPL manufactured and cleared Mosquito Repellant Liquid (MRL) of 25 ml in a plastic container along with Liquid Vapourising Device. (Mortein Power Booster, hereafter referred to as LVD).. The mosquito repellant liquid falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 3808.10 the First Schedule to CETA, 1985 and liquid vaporising device falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 8516.00 of the said Schedule are notified for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f duty paid on tucks of five blades as well as on other materials and after packaging cleared the combination package adopting the MRP of Rs. 23/-, on the basis that the razors were given free with the blades in a combination package and MRP of blades shall be the MRP for the combination package. In that case, the Tribunal had found that razors and blades being goods notified for assessment under Section 4A of the CEA, the razors had also to suffer duty based on its MRP of Rs. 10/- when cleared in combination with blades based on the MRP of razors. 4. During hearing, ld. Consultant appearing for M/s. IHPPL reiterated the grounds taken in the appeal. The appellants manufactured what they called Mortem Redlight Combipack. On the combipack ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ka Mosquito Coil Manufacturing Co. v. CCE [2004 (174) E.L.T. 107 (Tri.)]. The ld. Counsel submitted a copy of the Tribunal's decision in Himalaya Drug Co. v. CCE Bangalore-III reported in 2006 (195) E.L.T. 109 (Tri.-Bang.) and submitted that the issue involved was settled by the said decision. 5. Ld. SDR supported the reasoning followed by the Commissioner in the impugned order. She also cited case law, CCE, Mumbai v. Godrej Industries Ltd. [(2006 (200) E.L.T. 348 (Tri. - Mum)] and G.S. Enterprises v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2002 (144) E.L.T. 387 (Tri.-Del) in support of the plea that duty demand LVD under Section 4 was in accordance with law. The LVD was supplied free like the physician's sample and was assessable to duty as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessed to duty. In this view of the mat r, we find the impugned order not sustainable. 7. In the G.S. Enterprises case (supra), relied on by the Commissioner, both the razor and the blade packets sold in combipack were also sold separately with MRP marked on the packs. The assessee had received tucks of five blades from the principal manufacturer to pack it along with razors manufactured by for free supply. Tribunal decided that the blades had to suffer duty based MRP. In the instant case both the items in the combipack are manufactured by the assessee. Therefore, the ratio of G.S. Enterprises (supra) is not applicable to the subject case. In the CCE, Mumbai v. Godrej Industries Ltd. case, the manufacturer of the goods Cinthol toile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
