TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a commodity packed in multiple sachets as a multi-piece package, but sold by weight or measure, falls within the exemption under Rule 34(b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 so as to exclude valuation under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) Whether cartons containing large numbers of individually packed lip smoothers or shampoo sachets constitute multi-piece packages for retail sale attracting section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Issue (i): Whether a commodity packed in multiple sachets as a multi-piece package, but sold by weight or measure, falls within the exemption under Rule 34(b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 so as to exclude valuation under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: The commodity was packed in sachets of identical quantity, with the individual and aggregate weights printed on the packets. Rule 12(2) read with Schedule V permitted declaration and sale by weight or measure for the commodity. Rule 17 required additional declarations for multi-piece packages, and those requirements were complied with. Rule 34(b) exempted packages containing a commodity from the rules where the commodity was sold by weight or measure and the net weight was within the prescribed limit. The Court held that the expression in Rule 34(b) was wide enough to cover such packages and that the distinction sought to be drawn merely because the commodity was packed in multiple sachets was unsustainable. The contrary view in Varnica Herbs was not accepted.
Conclusion: The exemption under Rule 34(b) applied and valuation under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was inapplicable; the assessee succeeded on this issue.
Issue (ii): Whether cartons containing large numbers of individually packed lip smoothers or shampoo sachets constitute multi-piece packages for retail sale attracting section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: The cartons contained very large quantities of units, such as 72 lip smoothers or more than 500 shampoo sachets, which were not ordinarily purchased by consumers for own use as a retail package. On that factual basis, the goods were not regarded as being sold as a retail multi-piece package attracting the retail sale price regime under section 4A. Each unit was treated as a separate sale unit rather than as a retail carton package.
Conclusion: Section 4A did not apply to those cartons, and the assessees succeeded on this issue.
Final Conclusion: The appeals filed by the Revenue in the first batch failed, while the later appeals by the assessees were allowed, leaving the overall determination in favour of the assessees on the applicability of the retail price-based valuation regime.
Ratio Decidendi: A package sold by weight or measure, and otherwise complying with the declaration requirements applicable to multi-piece packages, is not excluded from the Rule 34(b) exemption merely because it consists of multiple individually packed pieces; section 4A applies only where the statutory requirement to declare retail sale price on the package is attracted.
TaxTMI 
