VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this appeal are, in brief, as under: - -

(2.) SHRI B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that during the period of dispute, Rule 15 of the Standards of Weight & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 (SWM) Rules provided for declaration of MRPs of combination of the dissimilar items, provided the individual pieces contained in the packaged do not carry retail sale price and carry a declaration mat the same are not intended for retail sale as such, that in this case, in each combination pack the individual items carried a declaration that the same are not for retail sale as such, that when MRP has been declared of a combination pack, that MRP would the basis for determining assessable value of the combination pack and not the MRP of the individual item in the combination pack, that the issue involved in this case stands decided in the appellant's favour by the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Millennium Appliances India Ltd. reported in, 2009 (248) E.L.T. 713 (Tribunal -Bang.), that the same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of ICON Household Products reported in : 2007 (216) E.L.T. 579 (Tribunal -Chennai), that this view of the Tribunal is in accordance with the Board's Circular No. , dated 28 -10 -2002, according to which in a multi -piece package i.e. a package of containing two or more of the items of the same kind in which the individual items, though individually packed have no MRP on them or the MRP is scored out, then the MRP declared on the multi -piece package would be taken for the purpose of determination of assessable value under Section 4A, that the Tribunal in the above mentioned judgments has held that the principle laid down in the above mentioned circular of the Board in respect of multi -piece package would apply in the case of combination package also, as intention of the Board is not to discourage the trade from offering various schemes to promote their products and that in view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The undisputed facts are that all the items which are being cleared in combination pack are notified under Section 4A for assessment of the duty on the basis of their MRP. There is also no dispute that each of the items in the combination pack was individually packed and while the individual items of the combination pack were not carrying individual MRP on them, there was MRP for the combination. There is also no dispute that the combination packs were not further packed in a bigger pack and according to the Appellant were being delivered together tied by a ribbon. The point of dispute is that as to whether in respect of clearances of such "combination packs", duty liability is to be determined in respect of each item in the combination on the basis of its individual MRP or duty is to be calculated by treating the combination as one item on the basis of its combined MRP.