2015 (10) TMI 1554

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....007. The appeal is basically against the demand of central excise duty consequent on re-classification of chloromint under Heading No.30.03 and certain under valuation of Section 4 as well as MRP based items cleared by the appellants. The issue involved and the amount involved can be summarized in the following table:- Sl.No. Issue Period of demand Duty amount (in Rs.) Penalty amount (In Rs.) 1. Classification of Chloromint under Heading 30.03 1.3.2003 to 31.01.2004 2,38,15,957/- 2,38,15,957/- 2. Valuation of free supply items falling under Section 4 A with other Section 4 A items 1.1.2001 to 31.10.2005 70,74,772/- 70,74,772/- 3. Valuation of free supply items falling under Section 4 A wit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory reported in 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC) 5. On the second issue regarding free supply of items along with items subjected to valuation under Section 4 A, the appellant contended that they are having various promotional schemes in which the Jars containing products like Alpenliebe, Coffeetoes, etc. are subjected to MRP based assessment. 6. As a market promotion certain extra quantity of same extra products (Alpenliebe or some other products - Golia) are kept as free inside the Jar. The MRP of the Jar is declared and excise duty is paid on such MRP affixed after taking permissible abatement. It is admitted fact that the individual pieces inside the Jar do not bear MRP on them. The appellant also submitte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ffixed on them. Regarding valuation of Chloromint in cases of free supply of certain extra pieces, he argued that they cannot be equated to quantity discounts as explained in the original order. 9. Heard both the sides and examined the appeal records carefully. 10. Regarding the first issue of demand of central excise duty on re-classification of chloromint under Heading No.30.03, it is clear that the second show cause notice, which resulted in the impugned order, was issued after the matter was already agitated by an earlier notice dated 4.3.2005, which finally entered in settlement of the case vide order dated 20.11.2005. The ld. Commissioner's observations, that the appellant should have of their own re-examined the issue of cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ER-1 Returns, classification, declarations, letter dated 5.11.97 and also the demand and settlement of the demand as discussed earlier in the latter period. As such, we find that the demand for excise duty on Chloromint indicating extended period is not sustainable because of application of time bar under Section 11 A of Central Excise Act, 1944. 12. Regarding valuation of free supply items when the goods are subjected to MRP based assessment, we find strong force in the appellant's plea that the retail packing in these cases are the jars, which bear the MRP declaration as per the legal requirements and also clear indication to the effect that numbers of free pieces inside the said pack - Jar. The retailers could be selling individua....