TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 413
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cember 2006. The order also confirmed another demand of Rs. 2,35,34,048/- towards liability on the same ground for the period January 2007 to November 2007 against the assessee. The Commissioner also demanded interest due for the delay in payment of differential duty on the impugned clearances. Equal amount of penalty as the duty demand for the period August 2005 to December 2006 has been imposed on the assessee under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act (the Act). There is yet another penalty of Rs. 2,33,00,000/- imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for various contraventions involved in the impugned clearances during the period January 2007 to November 2007. The demand is on the basis that clearances of unwrapped blades i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ances. 3. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee has challenged the demand on various grounds. The goods involved were semi-finished blades cleared in unwrapped and bulk condition without any MRP being printed on them. Such goods had to be assessed under Section 4 and not under Section 4A. The Commissioner did not appreciate the contention of the appellant that the goods cleared were not fully finished safety razor blades but were only semi-finished blades, in naked form cleared in bulk which required operations including packing and printing of MRP to make them fully finished goods. Safety razor blades were notified in the third Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 (Tariff Act for short). As per sub-clause (iii)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cleared by the appellant were not covered by the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (PC Rules for short). MRP based assessment was therefore not attracted. The decision of the Tribunal relied on by the Commissioner in the case of Jayanthi Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (215)] E.L.T. 327 (S.C.) to pass the impugned order was set aside by the Apex Court. In the said decision, Tribunal had held that unless the packages were excluded under Rule 34 of PC Rules, the goods would be liable to valuation in terms of Section 4A of the Act read with the SWM Act. The Apex Court had held that for the application of Section 4A, there had to be a requirement under the SWM Act or the Rules made thereunder or any other law to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....blades in bulk from the factory to a unit in Himachal Pradesh. The assessee therein had paid duty in terms of Section 4 of the Act. The facts of that case were that the goods cleared from the factory of the assessee therein were not in retail sale packages and that the activity of packing the goods cleared by the assessee and delivering it to the market for retail sale was undertaken in Himachal Pradesh. The goods involved were covered under the third Schedule of the Tariff Act and the activity of packing of such goods amounted to manufacture. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jayanthi Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (215) E.L.T. 327 (S.C.] and held that impugned blades cleared in bulk were not covered und....