9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Act, 1944, on the basis of MRP printed on the packs. 2. The dispute in the appeal relates to a composite pack consisting of one razor with tuck of five blades. The appellant is receiving the parts of razors and the packs of blades from M/s. Gillette India Ltd. on payment of duty and packing material is procured by them from the market. Thereafter the razors are manufactured out of the parts supplied by M/s. Gellette India Ltd. and the same are blistered along with the packets of blades received from the Gellette India Ltd., in a composite pack and MRP is printed on the same and the packs are cleared on payment of duty on the printed MRP. The appellant availed the benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on the blades supplied by M/s Gellet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise, Jaipur, 2004 (177) E.L.T. 955 (Tri.-Del). The Tribunal, by relying upon another decision of the Tribunal in the case of another job worker of Gillette India, namely, G.S. Enterprises, reported as [2002 (144) E.L.T. 387 (Tri.)] and by taking note of the fact that the said Tribunal's order stands confirmed by the Apex Court as reported in [2003 (151) E.L.T. page A297] rejected the appellant's appeals. 5. Learned advocate has brought to our notice another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prime Healthcare Products Vs. CCE, Daman, 2009 (245) E.L.T. 550 (Tri. Ahmd.), wherein it was held that where Tooth Brush was offered free of cost, in a combination pack of Tooth Paste and Tooth Brush, the denial of credit of duty paid on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t decision in the case of another job worker, dated 07.08.2012, is again in favour of the assessee. As such, without going into the applicability of various contra decisions passed, we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed of on the point of limitation. 7. The show cause notice was issued on 10.12.2003 for the period October 2001 to July 2002. As such, the entire period is beyond the normal period of limitation. The appellant have taken a categorical stand that the entire facts were in the knowledge of the Revenue inasmuch as number of quarries were raised by them vide their letter, which stand replied to by the appellant. Our attention stands drawn to the said correspondence placed on record as annexure. 8. Without going into t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
