TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (7) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty under Section 11AC on M/s. IHPPL equal to the duty amount demanded. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. IHPPL manufactured and cleared Mosquito Repellant Liquid (MRL) of 25 ml in a plastic container along with Liquid Vapourising Device. (Mortein Power Booster, hereafter referred to as LVD).. The mosquito repellant liquid falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 3808.10 the First Schedule to CETA, 1985 and liquid vaporising device falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 8516.00 of the said Schedule are notified for MRP based assessment in terms of Section 4A of the Act. The MRP of Rs. 36/- appears on the plastic container which holds the repellent liquid. The LVD is packed along with the plastic container with mosquito repellent liqu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ckage and MRP of blades shall be the MRP for the combination package. In that case, the Tribunal had found that razors and blades being goods notified for assessment under Section 4A of the CEA, the razors had also to suffer duty based on its MRP of Rs. 10/- when cleared in combination with blades based on the MRP of razors. 4. During hearing, ld. Consultant appearing for M/s. IHPPL reiterated the grounds taken in the appeal. The appellants manufactured what they called Mortem Redlight Combipack. On the combipack, MRP was printed as Rs. 36/- in compliance with the requirement of provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. It was submitted that the combipack was manufactured and cleared by the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the issue involved was settled by the said decision. 5. Ld. SDR supported the reasoning followed by the Commissioner in the impugned order. She also cited case law, CCE, Mumbai v. Godrej Industries Ltd. [(2006 (200) E.L.T. 348 (Tri. - Mum)] and G.S. Enterprises v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2002 (144) E.L.T. 387 (Tri.-Del) in support of the plea that duty demand LVD under Section 4 was in accordance with law. The LVD was supplied free like the physician's sample and was assessable to duty as per Section 4 of the Act. She also informed that no appeal was filed by the department against the Himalaya Drug Co. case decision (supra). 6. We have carefully considered the case records and the rival submissions. In the instant case, the MRL a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ked on the packs. The assessee had received tucks of five blades from the principal manufacturer to pack it along with razors manufactured by for free supply. Tribunal decided that the blades had to suffer duty based MRP. In the instant case both the items in the combipack are manufactured by the assessee. Therefore, the ratio of G.S. Enterprises (supra) is not applicable to the subject case. In the CCE, Mumbai v. Godrej Industries Ltd. case, the manufacturer of the goods Cinthol toilet soaps had sold them under contract for free supply by the principal manufacturer along with Dabur Vatika Oil etc. The Tribunal decided in that case that toilet soaps being notified for MRP based assessment and the MRP printed on it, duty had to be paid on th....