COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. B.G. CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal of the Revenue is directed against the appellate Commissioner's order upholding the order of adjudication passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Both the lower authorities rejected the proposal as contained in the show -cause notice for assessment of the subject goods in terms of Section 4A of the 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 the Revenue, all the three conditions of "wholesale package" laid down under Clause (x) of Rule 2 of the above Rules were to be cumulatively satisfied by the manufacturer so as to claim exemption under Rule 34(b). These three conditions, mentioned in the memo of appeal, are as follows:

(2.) AFTER considering the submissions, the clarification issued by the Legal Metrology Director as also the case law cited by the learned consultant, we have found no merit in this appeal of the Revenue. The clarification of Legal Metrology 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 classification given in the above manner, we find that the respondent succeeded in showing that the subject goods fell within the ambit of "wholesale package" and thereby made out a case for exemption under Rule 34(b), with the result that their products were to be assessed to duty in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act during the material period. We are told that the respondent paid duty on that basis.