2009 (4) TMI 253

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n activity would amount to manufacture as per Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 33 and the Standards and Weights of Measures Act is applicable to the combination packages and the cost .of goods given free has to be included in the total MRP. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand raised against the respondent. Aggrieved by such an order, the respondent filed an appeal to the learned Commissioner (A). The learned Commissioner (A) while allowing the appeal of the respondent and setting aside the Order-in-Original held as under : "It is the appellant's contention that they had received the shampoo as well as face wash gel in bulk and the same was labeled together and packed in retail is manufacture. The product sold is a combination packag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of the appellant that this process amounts to manufacture as per Chapter 33, both the products are covered under Section 4A and Standards of Weights and Measures Act. They rely on the decision of Oswal Fats and Oils Limited reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 112 (Tri-Delhi) which is upheld by Supreme Court - 163 E.L.T. A11Q, wherein bindis were packed along with soaps for free supply to buyers and it was held that the additional package of bindis had no connection to the price of soap the price of bindis is not includable in the assessable value of soap. In order to decide this issue, it is sufficient that the products are covered under Section 4A and also the Standards of Weights and Measures Act. Since the revenue has not contested that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... one of extending quantity discount but deciding the levy of Central Excise duty on an independent excisable goods manufactured and cleared free with another product. 3.2 The decision in the case of M/s. Oswal Fats and Oils v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 112 (Tri.-Delhi) is not applicable to this case, as the facts are different. In that case the manufacturer of soap was not a manufacturer of bindis and the bindis procured from the market were merely placed in the cartons containing soap on advice from M/s. HLL. In this case, the face wash gel in unit containers of 50/100 gm was a product manufactured by M/s. Himalaya Drug Company which was not exempt. 3.3 The respondents had availed cenvat credit on the inputs....