Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Imported 'Dove' Bathing Bars: Classification & Labeling Dispute Resolved</h1> <h3>HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR</h3> HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 70 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Classification of imported 'Dove' brand bathing bars under Central Excise Act.2. Liability regarding affixing labels declaring MRP and date of import.3. Duty demands, penalties, and interest on imported bars.Analysis:1. The issue of classification of 'Dove' brand bathing bars under the Central Excise Act was discussed. The Tribunal noted that the matter had been settled by the Apex Court for such brand bars being manufactured in India. It was emphasized that no evidence was presented to suggest that the imported bars of 'Dove' were different in constituents, warranting a classification other than under Chapter 34. Therefore, the proceedings to classify and demand duty under Chapter 33 were deemed unsustainable.2. Regarding the liability associated with affixing labels declaring MRP and date of import on the imported bars, the Tribunal referred to previous judgments. It was highlighted that the Tribunal and the Apex Court had already settled this matter in favor of the assessee in a previous case. The Tribunal found that the interpretation by the Adjudicator on the chapter note could not be upheld. Additionally, the argument that certain slogans rendered the goods marketable under the chapter note was dismissed due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal granted benefit to the assessee based on precedents and lack of contradictory evidence.3. The judgment also addressed the issue of duty demands, penalties, and interest on the imported bars. It was noted that the activity in question had been carried out at the premises of an independent job worker. The Tribunal emphasized that any demands under the Central Excise Act should have been directed at the job worker, not the appellants. The findings of the Respondent in this regard were deemed unsustainable. Consequently, no demand on the company or the imported goods could be determined, leading to the conclusion that no liability for penalties or interest could be imposed on the appellants. As a result, the order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.In conclusion, the judgment clarified the classification of imported 'Dove' brand bathing bars, addressed the liability related to affixing labels, and resolved the issue of duty demands, penalties, and interest on the imported goods. The decision favored the appellants, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting a different classification and the proper allocation of liability under the Central Excise Act.