2005 (10) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ducts are packed in retail packings. The appellant proposed to sell dandruff shampoo of 200 ml with a free offer of 100 gm face wash gel and dandruff shampoo of 120 ml with a free offer of 50 gm face wash gel. The two products would be tied together, a new label could be put to the bound products and the new price was printed on the label. The appellants cleared these products adopting valuation as per section 4A of the CE Act of 1944. In other words, they discharge their duty liability on the basis of maximum retail price minus abatements allowed in the notification. The Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the following grounds. (i)      The process of binding together with face wash gel and dandruff sha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ks or adoption of any treatment to render the products marketable to the consumer, shall be construed as "manufacture". (ii)     Even as per Johnson & Johnson's decision relied on by the adjudicating authority "labelling of product together with packing from bulk pack to retain would amount to manufacture". Since the appellant received both the products in bulk and packed in retail, the process undertaken by the appellant is manufacture. (iii)    In terms of the decision of Delhi CESTAT in the case of Surya Foods Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 488, if dissimilar products are sold together, the same is covered under provision of CBEC Circular No. 673/64/2002. (iv)    The a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....E.L.T. A183. (viii)  The learned CA relied on the following case laws. (a)      Oswal Fats and Oils Limited, reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 112 Tri.-Delhi), which is upheld by Supreme Court - 2004 (163) E.L.T. A119. (b)      G.S. Enterprises v. CCE reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 31 (Tri.-Del.). (c)      CCE v. Hindustan Lever Limited reported in 2002 (142) E.L.T. 513. (d)      CCE v. Hindustan Lever Limited reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. 80 (Tri.-Chennai). (e)      Pesticides India v. CCE reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 143 (Tri.-Delhi). 6. The learned SDR reiterated the Order-in-Original. 7. W....