TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Act is not applicable to such packages. – Even a multipiece package containing a common commodity, if exempted under Rule 34 ibid, is covered under Section 4 – revenue’s appeal rejected - E/1078/2004 - 213/2009 - Dated:- 13-2-2009 - Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President and Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY : Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Appellant. 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 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e packages are covered under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. We find that the issue in dispute in the present appeal is no longer res integra as it stands settled in favour of the assessees by the decisions of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Urison Cosmetics Ltd. reported in 2006 (198) E.L.T. 508 (Tri.-LB) wherein the issue was whether hair dye in pack of 3 sachets of 3 gms. each were multi-piece packages requiring declaration under Section 4A. The Tribunal 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 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ratio of the above decisions, we see no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. Further in the case of Kraftech Products Inc. cited (supra), the CBEC's circular relied upon by the Revenue in the present appeal has also been dealt with in para 19 and 20 of the judgement. The court has held that the opinion of the Law Ministry based on which the circular was issued, is not based on any legal principle, it did not take into consideration the effect of Rule 12; it proceeded on the premise that Rule 34 (b) would be applicable to a package containing a commodity and as such the exemption would not be applicable to "multi-piece package" which is also a package containing a common commodity and to hold it otherwise would be violating the pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
