Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Cce vs Urisan Cosmetics Ltd. on 27 May, 2005

Modern High Tech India vs Cce on 3 September, 2007

As rightly observed by the Larger Bench in Urison Cosmetics (supra), the decision in Varnica Herbs case was rendered per incuriam without noticing the provisions of the Vth Schedule to the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules. The decision of the Larger Bench is also in support of the present appellant's case. Learned Jt. CDR has made an endeavour to support the department's allegation that the pouches/sachets were sold to the ultimate consumers in terms of numbers and not by weight or measure and hence Rule 34 would not be applicable to them. We have found no sense in this argument inasmuch as any quantity -- whether it be weight, volume (measure) or number -- denotes the quantity of the bare commodity, without its container. One can count the number of pouches/sachets of shampoo but cannot "count" the shampoo contained in such pouches/sachets in numerical terms. Show-cause notice also had proceeded on the premise that the pouches/sachets containing shampoo were sold to ultimate consumers in terms of numbers and not by weight or measure. As a matter of fact, the appellants had sold shampoo of the second category by measure (volume). Admittedly, the volume of shampoo contained in each pouch/sachet was less than 10 ml and, ipso facto, the goods stood excluded from the applicability of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

(1 To 8): M/S. Sampre Nutrition Limited vs (1 & 8): The Commissioner Of Customs & on 19 January, 2012

8. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) submitted that, with the decision of the Tribunals Larger Bench on the issues referred from the case of M/s. Roys Industries Ltd., the question whether the assessment in these cases was required to be made in terms of Section 4 or 4A of the Central Excise Act stood settled in favour of the Revenue and therefore the demands of duty were only liable to be upheld. It was submitted that the decision of the Larger Bench was not challenged by the assessee (M/s. Roys Industries Ltd.) and the same was binding on them. It was further pointed out that the Larger Bench had distinguished the ratio of the decision in Swan Sweets case and had correctly applied the ratio of the decision in CCE, Mumbai vs. Urison Cosmetics Ltd.: 2006 (198) ELT 508 (Tri.-LB), to the facts of the case on hand. In this manner, the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) endeavoured to defend the orders impugned in the assessees appeals.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Central Arecanut And Cocoa ... vs Cce on 22 February, 2008

She also invited our attention to the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CCE Mumbai v. Urison Cosmetics Ltd. , 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.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The Central Arecanut And Cocoa vs Cce, Mangalore on 22 February, 2008

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.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Charishma Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. on 9 March, 2006

5. We find that Rule 34 of SWMR exempts under Sub-rule (b) packages containing the commodities net weight of which is less than 10 gm. or 10 ml if sold by weight or measure from the entire SWMR including provisions of Rule 17, which is applicable to multi pieces packages. We also find that the issue of applicability of Section 4A to packages of cosmetics has been dealt at length by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. Urison Cosmetics Ltd. vide Order No. M/278/WZB/06/C-I/EB dated 7-2-2006 , which held that the cosmetics are required to be sold by weight or measure and not by numbers and hence, subject to the limits prescribed under Rule 34(b) of SWMR, packages of cosmetics would remain outside the purview of the said rules and would be assessed under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Urisan Cosmetics Liberty on 29 August, 2013

4. The Ld. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue fairly submits that issue has been settled against the Revenue by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Mumbai Vs. Urison Cosmetics Ltd.  2006 (198) ELT 508 (Tri-LB) and Honble apex Court in the case of CCE, Vapi Vs. Kraftech Products  2008 (224) ELT 504 (SC). In these decisions it has been held that even a multi-piece package would be eligible for the exemption under Section 34 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rule, 1977 and if the quantity contained in the multi-piece package is less than 10 grams, there is no statutory requirement of affixing MRP on these products and therefore, the provisions of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, would not be attracted.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next