TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce: Shri K. Lal, Authorised Representative (SDR), for respondent Per: P.G. Chacko This appeal filed by the assessee is arising before the Tribunal in a second round. In the first round, this Bench had remanded the matter vide order No.A/6/CSTB/2008/C-I dated 2.1.2008 in appeal No. C/1043/07 to the adjudicating authority with a direction to it to consider the assessee's new plea that they were to be treated as manufacturers of the goods in question by virtue of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, and to take fresh decision in the case. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority passed the impugned order after hearing the assessee. The learned Commissioner of Customs held that the assessee (impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel. The appellant has adverted to many provisions of the aforesaid Rules. With reference to Rule 2(h), they have stated that they are manufacturers and hence, when they sell the product directly to institutional consumers, they comply with the requirements of Rule 2A. Therefore, according to the appellant, they are not required to affix MRP on their product and hence its valuation for purposes of CVD should be done under Section 4 and not under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. 4. We have heard the learned SDR who has referred to the definition of 'manufacturer' given under Rule 2(h) ibid and has submitted that, in the absence of any marking on the goods indicating the goods as having been produced, made or manufactured by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch marking was there on the packaged commodity in question. According to them, the affixture of their trade mark on the commodity would ipso facto suffice the requirements of the above definition. We are not inclined to agree. The definition has to be construed strictly. It is settled law that substantive statutory provisions should be strictly construed. Upon such strict construction, if the goods in question should be held to have been manufactured by the assessee, it should bear clear markings indicating that it was made, produced or manufactured by them. It is not in dispute that the packaged commodity imported by the appellant did not bear any such marking. There is nothing in the definition of 'manufacturer' to show that mere affixt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
