Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2011(2)KLJ613; 2011(2)ILR(Ker)804; 2011(2)KLT1040; 2011CrLJ3791; 2011(2)KHC582
The question involved in this Writ Petition is whether an advertisement made by the first petitioner, M/s.Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., in India Today (Malayalam) in respect of their vehicle, Scorpio, in which the engine of the vehicle is described as having 109 BHP would constitute an offence under Section 11 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985, Sections 14 and 79 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and under item No.11 of Part II of the Second Schedule to Rule 5 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (National Standards) Rules, 1988. 2. The first petitioner Company, established in 1945, is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of motor vehicles under a general brand name "Mahindra". The petitioners released an advertisement in which the engine was described as having 109 BHP, BHP being British Horse Power. The second respondent, the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Kanhangad, issued Ext.P1 show cause notice to the second petitioner, the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(71)ECC268
1. Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 stipulates valuation of excisable goods with reference to retail sale price where the Central Govt. by way of issue of notification may specify any goods, in relation to which it is required to be declared on the package thereof the retail sale price of such goods, under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 on the rules, made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force. The Central Government by issue of notification No. 18/98-CE., (N.T.), dated 2-6-1998 has extended the provisions of Section 4A to Colour Television Sets (CTVs).2. Under Rule 6 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 issued under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, the manufacturers of CTVs have to print Maximum Retail Price (MRP) on the packages of the CTVs.3. By Notification No. 50/1997-CE, dated 10-9-1997, the Central Government specified the colour Television Receivers falling un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2002)(81)ECC575
1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,12,15,180.2. In the impugned order the lower authorities held that telephone sets cleared to Department of Telecommunication by the applicants are assessable to duty at the maximum retail price under Section 4A, CE Act.3. The contention of the applicant is that as per the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that the duty is to be paid on the maximum retail price on the goods which are required to print MRP on the packing under the provisions of standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. Section 34 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packed Commodities) Rules, 1977 provides that the Rule shall not apply to any packages containing a commodity, if, the marking on the packages indicates that it has been specially packed for the exclusive use of any industry as a raw material or for the purpose of servicing any industry. The contention of the applicant is that as the telephone clear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2004)(174)ELT396TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether the Central Excise duty is payable by M/s. Kraftech Products Inc. on the assessable value determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act as claimed by Respondents or with reference to M.R.P. under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act as claimed by the Revenue.2. Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned D.R., submitted that the Respondents manufacture 'Godrej Permanent Powder Hair Dye' and "Godrej Kali Mehndi'; that they were packing these products in multi-piece packages and were clearing to their sole buyer M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd.; that a show cause notice date 13.7.2000 was issued to the Respondents for assessing the multi-piece packages under the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act on the ground that multi-piece packages even if having the total weight of contents of all commodities less than 10 gms., required a declaration under Rule 17 of the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2004)(97)ECC169
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether the Central Excise duty is payable by M/s. Kraftech Products Inc. on the assessable value determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act as claimed by Respondents or with reference to M.R.P. under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act as claimed by the Revenue.2. Shri S.C. Pushkarna,learned D.R., submitted that the Respondents manufacture 'Godrej Permanent Powder Hair Dye' and "Godrej Kali Mehndi'; that they were packing these products in multi-piece packages and were clearing to their sole buyer M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd.; that a show cause notice date 13.7.2000 was issued to the Respondents for assessing the multi-piece packages under the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act on the ground that multi-piece packages even if having the total weight of contents of all commodities less than 10 gms., required a declaration under Rule 17 of the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
1. Revenue has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 95/2004 dated 13.5.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin.2. The Respondents manufacture aerated waters, which are cleared in unit containers viz., bottles of 200 ml, 300 ml, 500 ml etc. For purposes of valuation, the goods are notified under Section 4A of Central Excise Act 1944. They had filed price declarations under the relevant rules and declared the MRP of Coca Cola 500ml PET Bottle at Rs. 11.25 for clearance exclusively to M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. M/s.HLL was actually purchasing the above goods for their free offer scheme with the sale of flora oil by them. Revenue proceeded against the Respondent on the ground that the valuation should be done under Section 4 and not under Section 4A as the goods were ultimately supplied free of charge by HLL to their customers. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 90,026/-. The Respondents went in appeal to the Commissioner (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2238; 2008(127)ECC21; 2008(153)LC21(SC); 2008(224)ELT504(SC); JT2008(4)SC335; 2008(4)SCALE528; 2008AIRSCW3218; JT2008(4)SC335.
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Interpretation of Rule 34 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 is in question in these appeals which arise out of the judgments and orders dated 10th May, 2004 and 23rd March, 2005 passed in Appeal No. E/293/03-MUM and E/182-183/04-NB(A) by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai and Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi respectively.2. We, however, may notice the factual matrix of the matter from C.A. No. 2597 of 2005. Respondent manufactures hair dye. It is packed in pouches each containing 3 gms. 3 pouches (sachets) are sold in one packet. The net weight of each pouch, as also the net weight of the commodity in 3 pouches and the maximum rate is printed on the pouches. 3. Valuation of exciseable goods for purposes of charging the duty of excise is laid down in Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the following terms:4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of dut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC397; 2008(1)ALD105(SC); 2007(123)ECC93; 2007(149)LC93(SC); 2007(218)ELT167(SC); 2007(12)SCALE754; 2007AIRSCW7139
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The short but interesting question as to whether Refrigerator is a 'packaged commodity' falls for consideration in this appeal. The appellant is engaged in manufacturing Refrigerators. The Central Government issued a Notification No. 9 of 2000 dated 1.3.2000 under Section 4A(1) & (2) of Central Excise Act (for short 'the Act') and specified the goods mentioned in Column 3 of the said notification. Entry No. 48 pertains to the refrigerators whereby the Refrigerators invited valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act with the abatement of 40%. Section 4A(1)&(2) of the Central Excise Act require that any goods included in the notification shall be valued on the basis of the Maximum Retail Price (for short 'MRP') which is required to be printed on the packages of such goods. The five conditions for inclusion of the goods are:i) The goods should be excisable goods;ii) They should be such as are sold in the package;iii) There should be requirement in the SWM Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)(192)ELT714TriDel
1. The appellant in these appeals is a manufacturer of razors and razor blades in India. A part of the produce is also exported to Nepal. The present case relates to export goods.2. The appellant paid excise duty on the export consignments after assessing them to duty at export sale prices. Thus, valuation of export goods was in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Razor blades are specified under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The consignments cleared for home consumption in India were being subjected to duty passed on the MRP printed on the packets, in terms of Section 4A. Under the impugned order, excise authorities have held that the consignments exported to Nepal should also be valued in terms of Section 4A, that is based on their MRP. The present appeals challenge this finding.3.The contention of the Senior Counsel for the appellant is that Section 4A is attracted only to cases where goods are statutorily required (under the provisions of Standards of Weights and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(94)ECC33; 2004(167)ELT385(SC); JT2004(Suppl1)SC567; 2004(5)SCALE560; (2004)5SCC751
S. Rajendra Babu, C.J. 1. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Commissioner of Central Excise demanding duty of Rs. 2,07,64,870.16 for the period from 1.7.1998 to 31.1.1999. The appellant complied with the demand under protest without prejudice to their contentions and filed a reply to the show cause notice contesting the various points raised therein. The Commissioner ultimately gave a finding that the goods in question had been removed from the place of manufacture without printing the retail sale price as it was mandatory for them to print the price once the goods are cleared in packed condition as per requirement of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. It was admitted that it was only stock transfer to the depots of the appellant from the factory gate and retail price was printed at their depots. The appellant contended that stock transfer is not sale of goods in their case and actual sale of goods took place from their depots and before putting the goods ...
Tag this Judgment!