9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the manufacture of toilet soaps falling under Chapter 34 of Central Excise Act, 1944. The said product is a notified item under the provisions of Section 4(A) of the Act, which provides for assessment of duty on the basis of maximum retail price (MRP). The assessee was clearing the soaps in the market on the basis of declared MRP of Rs.15 and was paying duty accordingly. However, the dispute in the present appeal relates to the clearance of Johnson baby soap of Johnson, on which no MRP was affixed and which was sold to M/s Nestle (I) Ltd. under a contract price, for free gift along with sale of their product. The assessment to duty was claimed under the normal price in terms of Section 4 of the act. The said claim was not accepted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection (1) are excisable goods and are chargeable to duty of excise reference to value, then, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 4, such value shall be deemed to be the retail sale price declared on such goods less such amount of abatement, if any, from such retail sale price, as the Central Government may allow by notification in the Official Gazette....." I find the provisions of the said Act are to be read with the provisions of the Standards of Weight and Measurement Act, 1976 or the rules made thereunder. I have also perused the provisions of SEMA, 1976 and I find that it is specifically provided under this Act that "The provisions of this Chapter (Chapter II) shall apply to packages intended for retail sale and the express ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d their duty liability." 4. As is clear from the above that the appellate authority has given a categorical finding that no MRP was affixed on the soap cleared to the wholesalers in as much as the same were to be supplied free of cost. As such, he has held that the provisions of Section 4(A) will not apply. He has also followed the Board's circular. 5. We find that an identical issue had earlier come up before the Tribunal in case of CCE, Ludhiana v. Pepsi Food Ltd. reported in 2005 (186) E.L.T. 603 (T) = 2005-TIOL-221-CESTAT-Del.], wherein it has been held that such free supplied items which do not carry any printed MRP are not liable to be assessed under Section 4(A) of the Act. The Tribunal's decision in case of Nestle (India) Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be assessed under Section 4 and not under Section 4A of the Act. It was also held that the Board's circular had not been withdrawn and as per the settled law, Revenue cannot challenge the provisions contained in the circular. The same view was reiterated by the Tribunal in case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. ACME Healthcare reported in 2005 (189) E.L.T. 82 (Tri. - Mumbai). It was observed in the said decision that in terms of Rule 3 of the Standards of Weight & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, the provisions of Chapter II of the said rule of declaration of MRP will apply only to packages intended for retail. In as much as the goods were not meant for retail sale, but as free supply item, there was not statutory requirement for declaring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
