TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 768
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt manufactures branded chewing tobacco in two factories and has been discharging duties of Central Excise in accordance with section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. They had been issued with five notices for the period April 2003 to December 2003, January 2004 to August 2004 and from September 2004 to March 2005 in relation to clearances from Unit I and for the period between May 2003 to December 2003 and from January 2004 to March 2004 for clearances from Unit II. The appellant packs the chewing tobacco in pouches of 5 gms. and 26 of these pouches are then placed in polythene pack on which Maximum Retail Price is printed. Maximum Retail Price is printed separately on the pouches. The adjudicating authority held them to be liable to differ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for coverage under section 4A and that the Standards of Weight and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 prescribes printing of Retail Selling Price on the package. Our attention was drawn to the exemption in Standards of Weight & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 to retail packing that holds less than 10 gm or contain less than 10 ml. of the product otherwise required to be so compliant. It was also contended that the certificate purporting to be from the Legal Metrology is not acceptable as the competence of the issuer is not verifiable. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in Arora Product v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur 11 [2012 (276) ELT 77 (Tri. -Del.). Learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wholesale packs, are subject to duty in accordance with section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. These, however, are, in turn, packed in polyethylene packages of 26 pouches each with maximum retail price printed on the polyethylene packets. That the appellant clears goods in these polyethylene packets or multi-piece packs from the factory is undoubtedly clear from the invoices. 7. The consequent point for consideration is whether the multi-piece packs from the factory are intended for retail sale as claimed by the appellant and whether such goods intended for retail sale are required to be printed with Maximum Retail Price under the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. 8. It is amply clear that a pre-condition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... There can be no other test of intent. 10. It is quite possible that the retail distributor may opt to sell the individual pouches of chewing tobacco after breaking open of the polythene package. That is a commercial decision at the retail sale point which has no bearing on the assessment at the time of clearance. That the printing of Maximum Retail Price on the multi-piece pack suffices to express the intent of the producers of the goods and owner brand to market the multi-pack is apparent from the Rules. 11. We notice that both sides have cited judicial decisions to support their rival contentions. That both sides are able to do so is not indicative of disparate interpretations. On the contrary, all of them are consistent in not a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in the present case. In the present case MRP is indicated for the multi-piece package was indicated on the multi-piece package showing the clear intention that such multi-piece package also was intended for retail sale. " 14. In re Swan Sweets Pvt Ltd. also the Tribunal "The PC Rules use the expression "intended for retail sale " at numerous places in order to define whenever and wherever a particular set of information is required to be given on a package. Whether a packaged commodity is intended for retail sale or not will depend on the persons who organize the distribution and sale of the product and on none else. " 15. It is thus, unambiguously clear that the manner of retail packing - whether as a pouch of less than 10 gm/ 10 ml ....