TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 13
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2001 (NT) dt. 1.3.2001. The appellant also received bulk orders from M/s.Duncan's India Ltd. Duncan's Tea Ltd. & Tata Tea Ltd. for supply of 250 gms and 35 gms. of detergent powder to be supplied as free gifts along with their products. Assesses have sought permission for clearance of the goods under Section 4 which are supplied to industrial consumers and cleared the said goods to their customers by assessing under Section 4 of Central Excise Act during the periods May 2002 to Oct 2002 and November 2002 to March 2003. Show cause notices dt.3.4.2003 and 22.8.2003 were issued to the assessee covering the aforesaid periods proposing to assess the goods under Section 4A as per the M.R.P and demanding differential duty. Adjudicating authority in his OIO No.2/2004 dt. 30.1.2004 and OIO No.11/2004 dt. 16.4.2004 confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,60,390/- and Rs. 22,629/- respectively along with interest and also imposed equivalent penalties. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication orders and rejected the appeals filed by assessee. Hence these two appeals before Tribunal. E/1368 & 1369/2004 3. In these Revenue appeals, the respondents M/s.Henkel SPIC India Ltd. have fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re purchased by the manufacturer for free distribution from seller as free gifts and not sold as retail sale. He submits that appellate authority relying Tribunal's order in the impugned order in the case of BPL Telecom (P) Ltd. Vs CCE Cochin - 2004 (168) ELT 251 (Tri.-Bang.) is not applicable to the present case. He relied the following case law :- (1) Jayanti Food Processing (P) Ltd. Vs CCE Rajasthan 2007 (215) ELT 327 (SC) (2) KLM Pack Vs CCE Pondicherry 2011 (267) ELT 278 (Tri.-Che.) (3) Wyeth Ltd. VS CCE Mumbai 2008 (231) ELT 53 (Tri-Delhi) (4) Sun Direct TV Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC (Sea) Chennai 2009 (243) ELT 705 (Tri.-Chennai) (5) Butterfly Gandhimati Appliances Ltd. & Another Vs CCE Chennai-III 2014-TIOL-2466-CESTAT-Mad. 5.2 In the Revenue's appeals in respect of respondent M/s.Henkel India Ltd. he reiterated the findings of both adjudicating authority and appellate authority and submits that the authorities have correctly dropped the proceedings. He submits that adjudicating authority has correctly relied Board's circular dt. 11.8.97, 31.7.98 and 28.2.2002. He submits that in view of Supreme Court judgment in the case of Jayanti Food....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ormal price or transaction value under Section 4. We find that the issue stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayanti Food Processing (P) Ltd. Vs CCE Rajasthan (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the Supreme Court order are reproduced as under :- "27. The Tribunal in Para 8 of its judgment has observed : "Once the goods are specified items under Section 4A(1) and are excisable goods chargeable duty (sic) with reference value, then such value shall be deemed to be the retail sale price declared on such goods, less amounts of abatements etc. As we have already observed that Weights & Measures Act requires chocolate manufactured by the appellant to be printed with MRP on the same, we are of the view that the duty of excise on such goods is required to be assessed in terms of the MRP. The only exception where a manufacturer can deviate from the general rule of printing of MRP on the package is Rule 34 of Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977." We are afraid the law is too broadly stated here. It may be that chocolates manufactured by the appellant are required to bear the declaration of MRP but that cannot be t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erent packages of the chocolates. The case of the assessee has been consistent from the beginning that these chocolates were sold to Pepsi under a contract for a particular value and the said chocolates were to be offered as a free gift to the one who purchased a particular bottle of Pepsi (1.5 litres). The Tribunal has further expressed that the argument that the bar of KITKAT was not to be sold by Pepsi in the retail market but was to be given as a free gift, would be of no consequence as even if the appellant itself intended to give the bar of KITKAT as a free gift to its customers along with other item, the appellant would not be in a position to claim that there is no assessable value of the goods and as such no duty of excise shall be charged on the same. The logic is clearly faulty. In the given circumstances, the appellant would undoubtedly be assessable to duty under Section 4 of the Act. It is not as if the appellant would be totally exempt from paying "any" duty on such goods. It was rightly contended before the Tribunal that the thrust of Section 4A is on the packages and not on the commodity and it is only where the goods are sold in the packages that the section would....