Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

o The Bubble Gums are cleared in a jr containing 150 Bubble Gums; o Each Bubble Gum is marked with the Maximum Retail Price of Re.
1.00 and the jar also bear the MRP of Rs 150/- which is equivalent to aggregate of MRP of Rs 150 Bubble Gums contained in the jar.

o In addition to 150 Bubble Gums these jars also contained 20 Solano Toffees packed in a poly bag kept in the jar. No MRP is declared on the Solano Toffees.

o The packing label on the jar also contains an inscription "20 Solano Toffees free"

o These Solano Toffees when cleared otherwise bear the MRP of Rs 0.50 on each such toffee.
2.3 Alleging that respondents were clearing 20 Solano Toffees in each jar containing 150 Bubble Gums, respondents have short paid the Central Excise Duty by not including the MRP of these toffees in the MRP of the jar cleared by them containing 150 Bubble Gums and 20 Solano Toffees, revenue issued show cause notice dated 14.12.2009 to the respondent asking them to show cause as to why:
o Indian Drugs Manufacturer's Association [2008 (222) ELT 22 (Bom)] o Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2008 (232) ELT 245 (T-LB)]  By application of the above the Show Cause Notice has determined the assessable value of 222233360 pieces of Solano Toffees supplied free in the jars of Bubble Gum as Rs 7,22,25,842/- after allowing the abatement of 35% on the MRP of Solano Toffees cleared as such.

 The extended period of limitation has been proposed to be invoked in the show cause notice. Respondents have nowhere in their ER-1 returns declared that they are not discharging duty on 20 free Solano Toffees cleared in the jar of Bubble Gums.  The benefit of allowed by the adjudicating authority by stating that these 20 Solano Toffees was in nature of quantity discount, relying on the decision of tribunal in case of Himalaya Drugs Company [2009 (243) ELT 101 (T-Bang)] is not correct as these are not supplied as quantity discount but as free samples. 4.1 We have heard Shri A. K. Saini Authorized Representative for the Revenue. None appeared on the behalf of respondents despite notice. 4.2 Arguing for the Revenue, learned Authorized Representative reiterated the submissions made in appeal and placed on record the following decisions :

5.3 This order of Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision reported at [2015 (324) ELT 9 (SC)]. 5.4 Now coming to the facts of case in hand it is not the case of the revenue that the jar containing 150 bubble gums and 20 Solano Toffees were to be valued as per the Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On the contrary the finding of the Adjudicating authority that the said pack is an whole sale pack and not the retail sale pack has been admitted by the Committee of the Chief Commissioners while directing to file this appeal. After having done so, revenue has proposed to determine the value of whole sale pack by applying the provisions of Section 4A in respect of the Bubble Gums cleared by the appellant and the value of remaining Solano Toffees by treating them as free samples by application of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. We are not in agreement with such approach as by doing so revenue has proposed to disintegrate the wholesale package and determine the value of individual components under separate provisions of the same act. In our vie having held that Section 4A is not applicable to the whole sale pack in the form in which the jar containing 150 Bubble Gums and 20 Solano Toffees was cleared the value of entire jar was to be determined by application of Section 4 as it existed at that time. Revenue has in the show cause proposed not to determine the value of the whole sale pack but only a component of the said pack under Section 4. In our view Section 4 should have been applied to the entire pack in the form in which it is cleared, and liability to duty determined. This view is in accordance with the decision of the Apex Court in case of Makson Confectionary [2010 (259) ELT 5 (SC)]. Since there is no proposal either in the show cause notice to determine the value of jar under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 we are not in position to determine the same as of now. 5.4 In view of discussions as above since the show cause notice or the appeal filed by Revenue does not propose to determine the assessable value of wholesale pack in the form in which it is offered for clearance we do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue. 6.1 We do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue and dismiss the same.