MODERN HIGH TECH INDIA Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Shampoo (SH 3305.99) and Face Cream (SH 3304.00). In the impugned order, ld. Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed against them a total differential duty demand of about Rs. 2.26 crores in adjudication of three show -cause notices covering the period February 2003 to December 2004 and imposed on them penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs. The above demand is on goods broadly categorized as follows :

(2.) THE apex court ruled out the applicability of Section 4A for the reason stated in paragraph -29 of its judgment, which reads as under :

(3.) LEARNED Jt. CDR has sought to distinguish the case of Nestle India Ltd (supra) from the present case, by submitting that M/s. Nestle India Ltd. had not made any markings on the goods supplied to the buyer for free distribution along with 'pepsi' bottles and that, it was the buyer who made such markings on the free supply goods. We are not impressed with the distinction sought to be drawn between the two cases. The case of the assessee is that, in marking MRP on the goods and then crossing it, they only intended to convey to the buyer the worth of the goods under free supply. The Controller of Legal Metrology has not found anything wrong in marking MRP and then scratching it off on a product for the purpose of supplying it free of cost along with other consumer goods. That authority has categorically stated that there is no need to indicate MRP on the package containing shampoo/cream under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act and the rules made thereunder as the item is not intended for 'retail sale' but to be distributed 'free of cost' to the ultimate consumer along with other goods.