SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, P.KARTHIKEYAN
Commisssioner of Central Excise, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
Caress Beauty Care Products (P. ) Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R. Raghavan, M. Kannan,V.V. Hariharan

ORDER

Per Jyoti Balasundaram :

The respondents herein manufacture and clear 'Clinic Plus Shampoo' of 8 ml in what the department alleged was a multi-piece package in corrugated box containing 60 strips of sachets, each strip having 16 nos. of individually packaged and labelled pieces of shampoo sachets totaling 960 nos. to the clearing and forwarding agents of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Duty was being paid by the respondents under the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. According to the department, since the package falls within the ambit of Section 4A of the Act and further since the packages were nothing but multi-piece packages, the packages should have been valued under Section 4A. Show-cause notice No.1/2001 dated 06.02.2001 was issued proposing recovery of differential duty of Rs.4,31,71,027/- and proposing penal action against the respondents. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand and also imposed a penalty of Rs.40 lakhs on the assessees; the Commissioner (Appeals), however, allowed the appeal of the respondents on the basis of a prior decision in the case of Anabond Ltd., vide Order-in-Appeal No.179/2001 dated 30.08.2001 2002 (48) RLT 237 (CCE(

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top