Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
The Central Arecanut And Cocoa vs Cce, Mangalore on 22 February, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/1040/2005
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 125/2005 CE dated 03.05.2003, passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore)
For approval and signature
Honble P. G.CHACKO, Member (Judicial)
Honble P.KARTHIKEYAN,Member (Technical).
_______________________________________________
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? _______________________________________________
The Central Arecanut and Cocoa : Appellant
Marketing & Processing Co-op. Ltd.
Vs.
CCE, Mangalore : Respondent
Appearance Smt. Mythili, Advocate for the appellants Shri J.P. Gregory, JCDR for the respondent CORAM Mr. P.G. CHACKO, Member (Judicial) Mr. P.KARTHIKEYAN, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 22.02.08 Date of decision : 22.02.08 Final ORDER No.________/2008 Per P. KARTHIKEYAN The Central Arecanut and Cocoa Marketing and Processing Co-operative Limited, Puttur, (Campco) has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mangalore. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order of the original authority demanding differential duty of Rs.22,63,506/- along with interest and imposing penalty of Rs. 2,25,000/- on Campco. The demand was on account of revision of assessment applying MRP to clearances of packs containing about 100 Eclairs brand chocolates manufactured for Nestle during 20.02.2003 to 24.07.2003 on jobwork basis. Campco had paid duty on these clearances adopting the Ujagar Prints formula of cost construction method.
2. In the appeal before us seeking to vacate the impugned order, Campco has taken the plea that iclairs chocolates cleared in packets containing 100 or more pieces were wholesale packages. The individual toffees packed in the wholesale packages were sold in retail by the retailers. The toffees weigh 5.5 gms per piece. In terms of Rule 34 of the Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, packages containing goods of weight 10 gms or less when sold by weight are not required to carry on the package its retail sale price. As per Rule 2 (x) wholesale package includes packages containing 10 or more than 10 retail packages provided that retail packages are labeled as required under the rules. As per the statutory provisions the appellant was not required to print the sale price of the individual piece (weighing 5.5 gms) on the wholesale packages under the provisions of Standards and Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977. Though sugar confectionary of CSH 1704.90 and 18.03 were notified as goods to which provisions of Section 4A (2) relating to MRP based assessment applied during the material period, as the goods cleared were in wholesale packages containing individual sweets each weighing 5.5 gms, the duty demand on assessment of the goods under Section 4 A was not sustainable. They also referred to various Circulars of the Board to the effect that MRP based assessment had to be followed only in respect of goods which were legally required to display on its package, the MRP as per Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977. It was also argued that the goods cleared were not multi-piece packages defined under Rule 2 (j) of the Packaged Commodities Rules supra. The goods when they left the factory were not intended for retail sale. They summarized their arguments as follows:
A reading of Rule 34 along with Rule 2 (x) would clearly show that packages containing 10 or more retail packages would come within the definition of wholesale package and the individual retail packages in the wholesale package do not have to bear the MRP since they are covered by Rule 34 which excludes them from the Packaged Commodity Rules. Hence, the PC Rules would not apply to the subject goods and hence are excluded from Section 4A.
3. Ld. Counsel relied on the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in Swan Sweets Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Rajkot reported in 2006 (198) ELT 565 (Tri.-Mum.), wherein it was decided that the wholesale package weighing 500 gms containing chocolates weighing 4 gms each (for retail sale) did not attract MRP based assessment. In that case the Tribunal also decided that as per the definition contained in Rule 2 (j) of Packaged Commodities Rules, Multi-piece pack was a package of individual pieces, which as a whole as well as individual pieces placed inside, should be intended for retail sale. She also invited our attention to the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CCE Mumbai Vs. Urison Cosmetics Ltd. reported in 2006 (198) ELT 508 (Tri.-LB), which dealt with a similar commercial practice involving hair dye in powder form. In that case it was decided that Godrej brand hair dye in pack of 3 sachets of 3 gms each did not require to be valued on the basis of MRP under Section 4A of the Act.
4. Ld. JCDR submits that the Bangalore Bench of the CESTAT vide its decision in Roys Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE Hyderabad reported in 2006 (201) ELT 609 (Tri.-Bang.), an identical case of assessment of wholesale package of chocolates (iclairs) each weighing 5.5 gms was referred to the Honble President of CESTAT for constituting a larger bench to decide whether the packages weighing 220 gms had to be assessed under Section 4 or 4A of the Act. In other words, whether package containing several chocolates should be considered as a wholesale package or as a multi-piece package. In this decision, the Tribunal interpreted multi-piece package defined in Rule 2 Q as a package containing two or more individually packaged or labeled pieces of the same commodity of identical quantity, intended for retail sale, either in individual pieces or the package as a whole as intended for retail sale. It was held that retail sale could be for consumption by an individual or a group of individuals. The purchase of a poly bag or a pet jar (weighing 220 gms and 825 gms respectively), could be held as a retail purchase.
5. We have carefully considered the case records and the rival submissions. We find that in Swan Sweets Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal decided that if the appellants intended to sell the plastic jar or plastic bag, in which the toffees were packed for sale to retail consumers they would be required to print the MRP of the jar or bag in a definite, plain and conspicuous manner. Appellants did not intend so. Whether a packaged commodity was intended for retail sale or not would depend on the persons who organized the distribution and sale of the product and no one else. Individual chocolates weighing 4 gms and meant for retail sale were packed in wholesale package, weighing 500 gms, for convenience of distribution, and the wholesale package was not intended for retail sale to the ultimate consumer as it was not normal for a consumer to consume 500 gms of confectionary on one occasion. The Tribunal also held in that case that multi-piece pack as per Rule 2 (j) of Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977, envisaged that both the individual pieces as well as the package as a whole must be intended for retail sale. Only the individual toffee, and not the whole sale pack in which the toffees were placed, were intended for retail sale in that case. Such wholesale packs were not multi-piece packages and so were excluded for assessment under Section 4A of the Act.
6. The facts of the instant case are identical to those covered by the Swan Sweets Pvt. Ltd. (supra) decision of the Tribunal. As per the ratio of this decision, individual toffees weighing 5.5 gms per piece as well as packs of 100 such pieces do not attract assessment under Section 4 A of the Act. Revenue has no case that the above decision passed in 2006 has been appealed against. Therefore, following the above ratio we allow the instant appeal filed by M/s. Campco.
(Operative part of the order pronounce in open Court on 22.02.08)
(P.KARTHIKEYAN) (P.G. CHACKO)
MEMBER (T) MEMBER (J)
BB
??
??
??
??
2