2016 (10) TMI 735

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re placed in mono-carton for convenience of sale. Appellant cleared the goods claiming its duty liability shall be determinable under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. But Revenue alleged that it is out of the purview of that section and shall be covered by Section 4A of the said Act since the goods were cleared for retail sale. 2. Appellant's further submission is that reading of Rule 34 of the Standards of Weight & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (1977 Rules, for short) during the material time excluded applicability of the 1997 Rules in respect of the commodity, if the net weight or measure of the commodity was 20 grams or 20 milli litres or less, when those were sold by weight or measure. Appellant also plead....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant are covered by Rule 34 of the 1977 Rules and enjoy exemption from application of the 1977 Rules. Once there is an exemption, the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Krafttech Products (supra) shall apply. It is relevant to reproduce paras-15, 21 and 23 of the judgement of the apex court in Kraftech Products (supra) to appreciate the law on the subject and meaning of the term "multi-piece package", as well as applicability of Rule 34 and exemption granted by that rule as under:- "15. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the commodity in question is being sold in multi-piece package . Identical quantity of commodity is packed in each sachet. Yet again admittedly three sachets are packed in one packet. The weight of three....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vant factor for applying the exemption provision. Assuming Rule 2(j) was otherwise vague or unambiguous, illustration appended thereto brings out the true meaning and purport thereof. The reasoning adopted by the Madras High Court in Varnica Herbs (supra) does not appeal to us. It was rendered per incuriam. It was held to be so in Urison Cosmetics Ltd. (supra) by a Larger Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. We agree with the said opinion of the Tribunal. 5. Revenue says that legal Metrological Department has opined that the goods in question being 5.6 gms. each that ipso facto cannot be considered to be a multi-piece package. We are not guided by this opinion of the Metrology authority in view of factual f....