Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

CavinKare Pvt. Ltd., Carista Herbal Products (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry

2016 (10) TMI 735 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Transaction value or MRP based valuation - Taxability of Hair Dye with the brand name "Indica" cleared in retail packs containing 6 gms. each and six numbers of such pack placed in mono-carton for convenience of sale - Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 4A of the said Act? - Rule 34 of the 1977 Rules at the material time very specifically states that the goods weighing less than 20 grams or less than 20 milli litres when sold by weight or measure, are out of the purview of 1977 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

idered to be a multi-piece package. We are not guided by this opinion of the Metrology authority in view of factual finding of the adjudicating authority as to the weight of the sachet and clearance of six numbers of sachets packed in mono-pack carton attracting Rule 34 of the 1977 Rules, being a pack of 6 gms. in each sachet. That gets exemption from the application of the 1977 Rules. Accordingly, the goods cleared by appellant are to be assessed under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act withou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ir Dye with the brand name "Indica" were cleared in retail packs containing 6 gms. each and six numbers of such pack were placed in mono-carton for convenience of sale. Appellant cleared the goods claiming its duty liability shall be determinable under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. But Revenue alleged that it is out of the purview of that section and shall be covered by Section 4A of the said Act since the goods were cleared for retail sale. 2. Appellant's further subm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of to be treated in multi-piece packs attracting Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. To support such contention, appellant, relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE Vapi Vs Krafttech Products 2008 (224) ELT 504 (SC). 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4. In so far as the facts depicted at the outset are concerned, there is no dispute by Revenue. The legal dispute of Revenue is that the goods of the above nature and description are not exempt under Rule 34 of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ure, are out of the purview of 1977 Rules. 4.2 In the present case, the categorical fact finding by the Authority below is that the appellants had cleared 6 gms. sachet of the Hair Dye in a monopack carton containing six numbers of such sachet. The weight of goods in individual sachet satisfies the condition of Rule 34 of 1977 Rules. Therefore, goods of appellant are covered by Rule 34 of the 1977 Rules and enjoy exemption from application of the 1977 Rules. Once there is an exemption, the judge .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f commodity is packed in each sachet. Yet again admittedly three sachets are packed in one packet. The weight of three sachets is 9 gms, that is, less than the prescribed weight of 10 gms. .... .... .... 21. Rule 34(b) provides for exemption from the application of the Rules. The expression contained therein that nothing contained in these rules shall apply to any package containing a commodity is of wide amplitude. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that Rule 34 would apply in a case of this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n out of the umbrage of exemption clause contained in Rule 34 of the Rules. Why the commodity cannot independently be sold either by weight or measure is beyond our comprehension particularly when Rule 12(2) permits the same. The illustration appended to Rule 2(j) bring out a clearer picture. It states that the combined net weight shall be taken into consideration for the purposes mentioned therein. After combined weight is taken into consideration for the purpose of applicability of the Rules, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version