Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Darien Electric (P) Ltd on 6 November, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/1143/2003
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 29 & 30/2003 (M-IV) dated 22.09.2003, passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, (Appeals), Chennai).
For approval and signature
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
Honble P.K. DAS, Judicial Member
_________________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the :
order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? _________________________________________________________
CCE, Chennai : Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Darien Electric (P) Ltd. : Respondent
Appearance Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR, for the appellant Shri M. Karthikeyan, Consultant, for the respondent CORAM Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Shri P.K. DAS, Judicial Member Date of hearing : 06.11.2009 Date of decision : 06.11.2009 Final ORDER No._____________ Per: P.K. Das, Revenue filed this appeal. It is the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was set aside.
2. The relevant facts of the case as per the record in brief are that, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of prepared glues and adhesives, classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 3506 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents packs 12 bottles in a single pack and each bottle contain its usage and MRP printed on each of the 12 bottles. The appellants were paying duty under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As the packings were exempted from affixing of MRP under Rule 34 (1) (a) (b) of Standards of Weights and Measured (packaged Commodities) Rules 1977, Show Cause Notice issued proposing demand of duty under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The original authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty holding that the products are sold as multi-piece packages. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order. Hence, the Revenue filed this appeal.
3. The Ld. JDR reiterates the grounds of the appeal. On the other hand, the Ld. Consultant on behalf of the respondents submits that the issue is covered by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Vapi Vs. Kraftech Products 2008 (224) ELT 504 (S.C.). He also relied upon the decision of the LB in the case of CCE, Mumbai Vs. Urison Cosmetics Ltd. 2006 (198) ELT 508 (Tri.-LB).
4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen from the grounds of the appeal that the respondents packs 12 bottles in a single pack and each of the 12 bottles contain its usage and MRPs printed on each of the 12 bottles. Even though the respondents sells the items as a single pack, each of the 12 bottles are in turn sold in retail sale. There is no material available that the package containing 10 or 12 individual packs are intended to be sold in retail. So it cannot be treated as a multi-piece package. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kraftech Products (supra) held as under:-
26. The assessee manufactures Shampoo which is packed in sachets. Each sachet contains shampoo below 10 ml. It is packed in a caton containing more than 500 pieces. Such carton, according to the Revenue, is a multi-piece package.
When a lip smoother or a shampoo is packed in a carton keeping in view the quantity contained therein, the same cannot be said to be for retail sale. No person would ordinarily purchase for ones own use 72 lip smoothers or 500 pieces of shampoo.
Thus, it is not a case where the goods are being sold in multi-piece package. Each sachet or each lip smoother must be sold as a unit.
27. Civil Appeal Nos. 1029, 5069-5073 of 2007 and Civil Appeal No. 1174 of 2007 are allowed with costs. Counsels fees assessed at Rs.25,000/- in each case.
5. In the present case, the prepared glues and adhesives are not ordinarily purchased in bulk packing. So it cannot be treated as multi-piece package. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is rejected.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the Open Court on 06.11.09)
(P.K. DAS) (Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER TECHNICAL MEMBER
BB
4