Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

CCE & ST, Jaipur–II Versus M/s Arora Products And (Vice-Versa)

2017 (9) TMI 868 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Valuation - branded chewing tobacco - case of Revenue is that the packages containing multiple pieces of identical packets of chewing tobacco are to be considered as a retail package - Held that: - the facts recorded in the notice itself will indicate that each one of the package having less than 10 gms. of chewing tobacco has contained all the details as per the statutory requirement like contents and unit price etc. Even the larger packages containing multiple pieces of such small packages, in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s. Shakti Zarda Factory India Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (1) TMI 970 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the impugned goods cannot be subjected to as MRP based assessment under Section 4A. - Consequent upon deletion of the provision of Rule 2 (j) and Rule 17 of Packaged Commodities Rules w.e.f. 14/01/2007 the impugned order correctly applied the legal provisions to determine the principles of valuation - there is no merit in these appeals by the Revenue. - Penalty - Held that: - the issue .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

6217-56239/2017 - Dated:- 22-8-2017 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri H.C. Saini, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the appellant/respondent. S/Shri B.L. Narsimhan and Shashvat Arya, Advocates - for the Respondent/appellant. ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran These 23 appeals are against common impugned order dated 28/02/2015 of Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. One appeal is by the appellant/assessee covering the period August 2005 to 13/01/2007 c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

No. Description printed on multipiece packages Description printed on each pouch 1. NATRAJ Lime mixed Zarda Net Weight : (10gm x 27) When packed MRP (Rs.2/- per pouch) Max. Unit Sale Price (Rs.2/- x 27 pouch) NATRAJ Lime mixed Zarda Net Weight 10 gms when packed M.R.P. ₹ 2.00 2. NATRAJ Lime mixed Zarda Weight : (4gm x 32) MRP (Rs.1/- per pouch) Max. Unit Sale Price (Rs.1/- x 32 pouch) NATRAJ Lime mixed Zarda Net Weight 4 gms when packed M.R.P. ₹ 1.00 3. CLASSIC NATRAJ tobacco Lime mi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erusal of the above rules make it very clear that an additional declaration is required to be given on the multi piece packages and MRP is required to be declared on the retail packages contained therein in terms of Rule 17 (1) of the said rules and its proviso. The assessee has made declaration as required under Ruled 17 (1) both on the multi piece package and retails packages contained therein, and the multi piece packages do not contain any declaration that the packages contained therein are .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Section 4A holding that the appellant/assessee cleared branded chewing tobacco in multi-piece retail packages and, as such, the assessment is to be done under the said section. When the matter reached the Commissioner (Appeals), he held that the appellant/assessee is liable to assess the impugned goods in terms of Section 4A upto 13/01/2007 and thereafter in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. For the period prior to 13/01/2007 he confirmed a differential duty of ₹ 10,74,9 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

34 (b) of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities Rules), 1977. He submitted that the packages which are considered as multi-piece package, containing more than 10 pouches of 10 gms. or less, will have to be considered as a retail package in terms of Rule 2 (p) of the said rules. The chewing tobacco manufactured and cleared by the appellant/assessee can be purchased by individual or group of individuals in such multiple piece package and accordingly the same should be construed a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vering the period prior to 13/01/2007 they are not contesting the valuation in terms of Section 4A in view of the decision of the Tribunal in their own case - 2012 (276) E.L.T. 77 (Tri. - Del.), which has been affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in - 2014 (301) E.L.T. A103 (S.C.). However, he submitted that there is no case for imposing penalty in situation like this, which is involving purely interpretation of the applicable valuation provision readwith the provisions of legal metrology deali .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gs in the impugned order on the premise that the packages containing multiple pieces of identical packets of chewing tobacco are to be considered as a retail package. We find the facts recorded in the notice itself will indicate that each one of the package having less than 10 gms. of chewing tobacco has contained all the details as per the statutory requirement like contents and unit price etc. Even the larger packages containing multiple pieces of such small packages, indicated the MRP of indi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t of facts came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Delhi - I Vs. Shakti Zarda Factory India Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 - TIOL - 1896 - CESTAT - DEL. The Tribunal after examining various earlier decisions of High Courts and Supreme Court recorded as below :- 13. In Gupta Tobacco Co. (supra), the Tribunal held that chewing tobacco was not capable of being sold in numbers but was sold in weights of 5, 7 and 9 gms. pouches with no requirement for MRP under SWM Rules. The said decisio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. When the manufacturer intends the wholesale pack to be sold to a retailer and not to ultimate consumer the assessment under Section 4A is not sustainable. The said decision of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, as mentioned earlier. 14. We also referred to Board Circular dated 28/02/2002 which clarified the scope of application of provision of Section 4A. It was noted that SWM Act, 1976 and Rules made thereunder are administered by the State Governments. In case of doubt a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

packages below 10 gms. are totally exempt from the purview of rules. Further, in accordance with Rule 2 (x) and Rule 29 the package containing 10 or more retail packages, common wholesale package, need not carry retail sale price declaration thereon. Similarly, in response to a letter dated 24/07/2003 of Maharashtra Manufacturers Association, the controller of Legal Metrology, Government of Maharashtra vide his letter dated 20/08/2003 clarified on similar lines. 15. On Careful analysis of the i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version