Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Shri Bhikam Chand Chaudhary vs Cce, New Delhi on 24 July, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/Decision:24.07.2014
E/3139/2009-EX(DB) & E/3141/2009-EX(DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.25/D-I/2009 dated 31.08.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi].
M/s.Kuber Khaini Pvt. Ltd.
Shri Bhikam Chand Chaudhary Appellant
Vs.
CCE, New Delhi Respondent
For approval and signature:
Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
Appearance: Rep. by Ms. Seema Jain, Advocate for the appellant.
Rep. by Ms. Sweta Bector, DR for the respondent.
CORAM: Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Final Order No. 53004-53005 /Dated:24.07.2014.
Per Archana Wadhwa:
A very short legal issue is involved in the present appeal.
2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Khaini. During the period August, 2007 to December, 2007, the appellants cleared their product on payment of duty in terms of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Revenue entertained a view that the appellant was required to pay duty on the various sachets of 10 gms. or less, on the value determined in terms of the provisions of Section 4 A of the Central Excise Act and inasmuch as they are clearing the said sachets in strips of 14 sachets and such two strips are further packed in poly pouches. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated resulting in confirmation of demand of duty of Rs.3, 51,48,573.62 approximately along with imposition of penalty.
3. We find that the issue is no more res integra and stands settled by the Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Makson Confectionery Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (259) ELT 5 (SC) holding that a package containing multiple individual packages of less than 10 gms. each would not attract the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Urison Cosmetics Ltd. 2006 (198) ELT 508 (Tribunal-LB) has held that as packages of hair dye with net weight of 10 gms. or less qualify for exemption under Rue 34 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 from legal r4equirement of declaration of retail sale price, Section 4 A would not be applicable even if the clearance is by way of impugned multi-piece packages.
4. By following the above decisions, we find no merits in the Revenues stand inasmuch as the individual khaini pouches are of 10 gms and 9 gms and as such, exempted from declaring MRP on the packages by the provisions of Rule 34 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packages Commodity) Rules, 1977 as also by the above referred decisions. We accordingly set aside the impugned order in respect of confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty on both the appellants and allow the appeals with consequential relief.
(Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) ( Rakesh Kumar ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1