2008 (7) TMI 97

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the Respondent. [Order per: Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). We have heard Shri S.C. Kamra, learned Advocate for M/s. Daenyx International Pvt. Ltd. and nobody appeared on behalf of M/s. Philips Electronics India Ltd. 2. As per facts on record, the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s required to be declared because the goods cannot be assessed under Section 4A of the Act and valuation under Section 4 is required to be resorted. Accordingly, after the initiation of proceedings by way of issuance of show cause notice, the original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 35,32,916/- against M/s. Daeynx International along with imposition of penalty of identic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as a raw material or for the purpose of servicing any industry, mine or quarry." A reading of the above shows that if a package is marked unambiguously indicating that the goods having specially packed for the use of any industry, no MRP is required to be affixed. However, in the present case, it is not the Revenue's stand that CTVs being manufactured by the first appellant and supplied to secon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commodities) Rules is not in respect of packages, which may be having some model number indicating supply and use'in a particular industry but is in respect of goods which in unambiguous terms indicates that the same have been manufactured for a specific industry. Inasmuch as CTV's manufactured by the appellant did not specifically carry any marking to the effect that the same were specifically m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d that for the said judgment was placed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who has not considered the same in the order passed by him. We also note that the earlier instructions by the Board dated 28-2-2002 indicating to the contrary stands reversed by the Board after the Hon'ble Supreme Court order in the case of Jayanti Food Processing (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Rajasthan - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 327 (S.C.) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X