2006 (10) TMI 164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pany, in brief, is as under : (a) The petitioner Company, viz., Indian Refrigerator Company Limited (in short "I.R.C.L.") is in the business of manufacture of electronic consumer goods such as colour television, washing machines, refrigerators, mixer grinders, compressors and parts thereof and for manufacturing those goods, it buys the unassembled parts in SKD condition from Videocon Appliances Limited, Aurangabad and Applicom India Limited, Attapalli and sells the finished goods to Videocon International Limited for the purpose of marketing. (b) Videocon International Limited, keeping in mind the twin object of meeting out the competition and promotion of sales, placed on the order of combi-pack in the combination of refrigerator wit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assailing the allegation of the second respondent that mixer grinders in the combi-pack were not assessed under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (under MRP), would place reliance on the Circular dated 28-10-2002 issued by the Under Secretary to Government of India (Central Excise, Department of Revenue) which says that if the individual items comprising the multi-pack have clear markings that they are not to be sold separately or packed in such a way that they cannot be sold separately, then, the MRP indicated on the multi-pack could be considered for payment of duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is his contention that since the declaration "to be sold along with the refrigerator model no.... not for retail ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act, 1944, it was observed as under : "All that the Tribunal was required to do was to determine whether on a prima facie appreciation of the facts attendant upon the case and the available material, there was any justification for waiving the pre-deposit in toto. The impugned order of the Tribunal does examine that aspect and record a finding that having regard to the facts of the case and the nature of the items on which the credit had been claimed, it was not a fit case in which duty could be waived in toto. What is significant is that the petitioner had not claimed any financial or other hardship either before the Tribunal or before us in support of its prayer for a total waiver of the duty. In the absence of any such claim and keepi....