Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.35 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Section 4 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Rolls Royce Industrial Power (I) Ltd. ... vs Cce on 9 June, 2004
11. The Revenue relied on the decision of Larger Bench in Roys Industries Ltd. (supra). We have perused the said decision carefully. In the said decision it is recorded that the poly packs and pet jars are sold in retail. There is evidence that weight, MRP, number of pieces are printed on the labels of the poly packs and pet jars.
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi vs M/S. Kraftech Products Inc on 14 March, 2008
The Tribunal observed that the ratio of Swan Sweets Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is applicable to the sale of wholesale package and the ratio of Kraftech Products (supra) would apply to sale of multi-piece retail packages. If the total weight of multi-piece retail package is above 20 grams as in the said case, the MRP based valuation would apply.
Swan Sweets Pvt. Ltd., Makson Foods Pvt. ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Rajkot ... on 25 January, 2006
The Tribunal observed that the ratio of Swan Sweets Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is applicable to the sale of wholesale package and the ratio of Kraftech Products (supra) would apply to sale of multi-piece retail packages. If the total weight of multi-piece retail package is above 20 grams as in the said case, the MRP based valuation would apply.
M/S Arora Product vs Cce, Jaipur-Ii on 23 June, 2011
12. Similarly, we find the reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision of the Tribunal in Arora Product (supra) and Radha Tobacco Co. (supra) is also not appropriate. In the said case, the assessee had affixed MRP in the multi-piece package and it was recorded that the intention is such that the multi-piece package was also for retail sale. In fact in Radha Tobacco Co. the assessee claimed for assessment under Section 4A. The matter was remanded for re-verification of facts regarding wholesale/multi-piece packs. Whereas in the present case it is recorded that the polythene pack containing multiple pieces of chewing tobacco pouches were not intended for retail sale and they did not bear the MRP for such polythene pack as a whole. Further, we should note that whether a particular package is a retail pack or a wholesale pack is a question of fact to be decided in each case applying the relevant definition. Here it is necessary to note the nature of product and the manner of transaction at the retail end of sale. Chewing tobacco is packed in small pouches of specific weight. There are different types of pouches carrying different quantity of chewing tobacco. The weight of such tobacco contained in the pouch is printed. The price is also accordingly fixed. Admittedly, the price fixed has direct relevance to the quantity of tobacco contained in the pouch. The contention of the Revenue that chewing tobacco is sold by numbers is not tenable. While the retail pouch may be sold in number, the sale is with reference to the weight of tobacco contained in the said pouch. As an analogy we can mention that toothpaste in tubes and talcum powder in packs are sold in numbers. But the reference is to the weight contained, either of toothpaste or powder inside the pack. The price is directly influenced by the weight of the content. The buyer and the seller is fully aware that the product is sold by its quantum though for convenience it is put in unit packages. Hence, it is clear that product like chewing tobacco is sold always with reference to the weight contained in the pouch though the pouch as a unit is sold. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the conclusion reached by the lower authority in the impugned order on this count.
Cce & Cst, Rohtak vs Gupta Tobacco Company on 13 August, 2015
In Gupta Tobacco Co. (supra), the Tribunal held that chewing tobacco was not capable of being sold in numbers but was sold in weight of 5, 7 and 9 gms. pouches with no requirement for MRP under SWM Rules. The said decision has been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court (supra).
M/S Loknath Prasad Gupta vs Cce, New Delhi on 16 January, 2012
In Loknath Prasad Gupta (supra), the Tribunal held that 25 pouches of Khaini each containing 5 gms./9 gms. packed in polythene packs without MRP in such package is not governed by valuation under Section 4A. This order of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court (supra).
M/S. The Central Arecanut & Cocoa ... vs Cce, Mangalore on 12 June, 2012
(d) Central Arecanut & Cocoa Marketing & Processing Co-op. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mangalore reported in 2008 (226) E.L.T. 369 (Tri. Chennai) as affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. A107 (S.C.) ;