Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: standards of weights and measures act 1976 section 18 reference secondary and working standards Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat Page 1 of about 2 results (0.154 seconds)

itel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in : (2004)(93)ECC639

..... - (1). the central government may, by notification in the official gazette, specify any goods, in relation to which it is required, under the provisions of the standard weights & measures act, 1976 (60 of 1976) or the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force, to declare on the package, ..... it has been accepted by the tribunal. (c) in any case the board's circular is perfectly in tune with the legal provisions of the standard weights & measures act, 1976. rule 2(q) of standard weights & measures (packaged commodities) rules, 1977 defines retail sale as :- "retail sale in relation to a commodity, means the sale, distribution or delivery ..... -2-2002 is against provisions of the law. it has also been contended that as per standards of weights & measures act, 1976 there is no need for sale in retail as per definition of 'retail sale' under rule 2(q) of standard weights & measures (packaged commodities) rules, 1977. telephone sets are specified under section 4a and as .....

Miraj Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

..... the contention is that as per the provisions of section 4a of central excise act, any notified goods in relation to which it is required under the provisions of standards of weights & measures act, 1977 or the rules made thereunder or in other law or time being enforce to declare on package thereof, the retail sale price of such ..... goods to which the provisions of sub-section 2 shall apply. the contention is that the appellant wrote to the competent authority under the standards of weights & measures act for their liability to affix the maximum retail price on the pouches in which 6 grams of chewing tobacco is packed vide letter dt.4.4 ..... of the commodities is twenty grams or twenty milliliters or less. there is no requirement of mentioning mrp. the contention is that as the authority under the standards of weights & measures act clarified that there is no need to mention the mrp of small pouches containing 6 grams of showing tobacco, therefore, the revenue cannot ask for .....

Cce Vs. Urisan Cosmetics Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... the appellants multi-piece packages having only 9 gms in the multi pack under consideration is clearly exempt from the requirement of declaration of mrp under the standard weights and measures act. in other words, it is not legally obligatory to declare mrp of such packages".cce, daman v. kraftech products inc.dealt with ..... law for the time being in force to declare on the package thereof the maximum retail sale price of such packaged goods.the standards of weights & measures act, 1976 and the standards of weights and measures (packaged commodities) rules, 1977 require the marking of the retail price, batch number etc as prescribed for various commodities. ..... pieces contained in such multi-piece package (if such individual pieces are capable of being sold separately) is statutorily required under rule 17(1) of the standards of weights and measures (packaged commodities) rules, 1977. (ii) that in respect of multi-piece packages of a commodity intended for retail sale and which are notified .....

Kraftech Products Inc. Vs. C.C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2004)(173)ELT508Tri(Mum.)bai

..... 10ml. therefore, the appellants' multi-piece packages having only 9gms in the multi pack under consideration is clearly exempt from the requirement of declaration of mrp under standard weight and measures act. in other words, it is not legally obligatory declare mrp of such packages.5. the first proviso to rule 34(b) provides that the ..... provisions of section 4a of the central excise act will not be applicable for ....... of assessment of duty on such packages. rule 34b of the rules under standard and weight and measures act is very clear and unambiguous. the sub-rule (b) thereof, provides that the provisions of the packaged commodities rules will not be applicable ..... .11.1999 which in para 2 and 3 provides as under. the matter has been examined. multi-piece package has been defined under rule 2 of the standards of weights and measures (packaged commodities) rules, 1977 as follows: "multi-piece package" means a package containing two or more individual packaged or labelled pieces of the .....

Mehernosh Randeria Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Acc),

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... single pieces in polythene bag for the purpose of transport and were not in a packaged condition. the question of plugs and sockets therefore being covered by the standard of weights and measures act does not arise as they were not in a packaged condition. the package containing single piece of mccbs was affixed with a label stating, ..... the packaged commodities rules and therefore no mrp was required to be declared. it was also submitted that if the goods are packaged in single pieces, provision of standards of weights and measures (packaged commodities) rules, 1977 do not apply as has been held by the kerala high court in the case of peico electronics & electricals ltd. v ..... and the other mccbs were packed in single piece carrying a declaration as required under rule 34 of the packages rules and were therefore not covered under the standard of weight and measures act as per decision of the keral and andhra pradesh high. court cited by the appellants and the provision of rule 34. there is no .....

Roys Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

..... mumbai bench or whether they should be considered as 'multi-piece package' as per the views of this bench? (ii) whether the exemption under rule 34(b) of standards of weights & measures (packaged commodities) rules, 1977 available for individual pieces is relevant for deciding if the assessment has to be done under section 4 or 4a of the central ..... cce(a) 4. the learned jcdr urged that all the requirements for assessment under section 4a are satisfied in the present case. first, the commodity is notified under the standard of weights and measures act, 1976. under section 4a(1) of the central excise act also, the impugned commodity is notified. the pet jars/poly bags, by no stretch of ..... gms, and is classifiable under central excise tariff heading 1804.00. these goods are notified both under section 4a of the central excise act, 1944 and the standards of weights and measures act, 1976. the appellants are of the view that there is no requirement of affixing mrp in terms of rule 34(b) of the .....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur Vs. B.G. Constructions

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... has a strong bearing on the issue under consideration. accordingly, the different conditions for "wholesale package" laid down under clause (x) of rule 2 of the standards of weights and measures (packaged commodity) rules, 1977 have to be independently considered and not in conjunction as claimed by the revenue. considering the clarification given in the above ..... refer to your letter no. 900 fl 0383 dated 14.8.2003 and to state that the sub clauses under clause (x) of rule 2 of the standards of weights and measures (packaged commodities) rules, 1977 relating to the definition of "wholesale package" are to be read independently and not in conjunction." the learned consultant ..... central excise act. they held that the goods in question in the form it was cleared by the respondent was exempt under rule 34(b) of the standards of weights and measures (packaged commodity) rules, 1977 from the requirement of declaration of mrp and thereby from the application of section 4a of the act. according to .....

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Manisha International P. Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2003)(152)ELT345TriDel

..... case, admittedly are only pasting the sticker on the packing of the imported soap to indicate the name of the importer and the mrp which is the requirement under the standards of weight and measures act. simply putting a sticker, in our view will neither amount to labelling or re-labelling, the processes which have been deemed to be a process of ..... ; that the respondents re-labelled the products by affixing their labels which reads as under :- 3. the learned sdr, further submitted that it is a requirement of rule 33 of weight & measure (packaged commodities) rules, 1977 that all the pre-packed commodities imported into india shall carry a declaration regarding name and address of the importer, general or common name of .....

Purisons Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2004)(164)ELT417TriDel

..... .00 of the first schedule to the central excise tariff act, 1985. the appellant has affixed mrp on the individual package of its product under the provisions of standards of weights and measures (packaged commodities) rules. they entered into a negotiation with dcs & d regarding the rate at which its product can be supplied to different departments. ..... e.l.t. 219 (tribunal)]. in the above case majority view taken was that since consignments in question were cleared to dot in terms of the requirement under standards and measures act and packaged commodities rules they were required to be valued under section 4a and not under section 4.5. we find merit in the contention raised ..... also statutorily required to be affixed with the mrp on the individual package being not exempted under clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of rule 34 of the weights and measures rules, 1977.3. since the assessee has negotiated price with dcs & d, the revenue took the view that sale to the different departments is not retail .....

i.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC591

..... possible for the retailers to sell the product at the printed price and the goods are not capable of being sold at that price is erroneous. (vii) the standards of weights and measures (packaged commodities) rules, 1977 (for short, pc rules) have to be taken into consideration in interpreting the exemption notifications. (viii) the notifications are ..... law before the adjudicator. justice shri suhash chandra sen (as his lordship then was) indicated in paragraph 91 of the judgment that the provisions of the standards of weights and measures act, 1976 and the p.c. rules should be entirely overlooked even where there is no specific provision in the notification. it was further ..... the act, incorporated in 1997. the provision enables the government, in case of goods requiring declaration on the package of the retail price under the provisions of standards of weights and measures act, 1976 or the p.c. rules, to specify any such goods. if the goods are chargeable to duty with reference to value, the .....