9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the valuation of the products cleared by the appellant. It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant had cleared dairy milk chocolates in a container by assessing the same under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 instead of assessing the same under the provisions of Section 4A, as the product chocolates falling under chapter sub-heading 1801.00, were notified as products that required to be assessed under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant-assessee had contested the demands raised on the ground that the chocolates, dairy milk, were notified, but were of the weight of 3.9 gms, and of 14 gm., which was less that the threshold limit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r more individually packaged or labeled pieces of the same commodities of identical quantity, intended for retail sale, either in individual pieces or the package as a whole. In the case of a wholesale package, inter alia, it should contain 10 or more than ten retail packages provided that the retail packagers are labeled as required under the Rules. A harmonious construction of the three definitions would show that a unit package, which is consumed by the ultimate consumer, is a retail package; and a package which contains two such unit packages but not more than 9 such unit packages, is a multi-piece package; and if a package which contains ten or more such unit packages, is a wholesale package. The appellants therefore, submit that these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submit that, the net weight of each piece of confectionary in the package is 3.3 gms., which is less than the weight specified in rule 34(1)(b) and the packages are sold by weight as a wholesale package, which is an admitted position. In this connection, the appellants refer to and rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the following cases. ....... "3.3 Similarly, for the same reasons as aforesaid, the appeal Nos.E/2041 and 2042/04 of M/s Cadbury (India) Ltd. are also allowed in the above terms." 6. Further, we find that the Tribunal in the case of Cocoa Marketing & Processing Co-Op Ltd. (supra), after considering the ratio in the Swan Sweets Pvt. Ltd. case, has held as under: 5. We have carefully considered the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, individual toffees weighing 5.5 gms per piece as well as packs of 100 such pieces do not attract assessment under Section 4 A of the Act. Revenue has no case that the above decision passed in 2006 has been appealed against. Therefore, following the above ratio we allow the instant appeal filed by M/s. Campco. 7. The said order of the Tribunal was taken up in appeal by the Revenue before the apex Court in civil appeal and the same was dismissed by the apex Court on 15/09/2008 which is reported at 2008 (232) ELT A107 (SC). 8. Further we find that, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot vs. Makson Confectionary Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (259) ELT 5 (SC) their Lordships agreeing with the decisions rendered by the Tribunal in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
