2004 (6) TMI 438 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of brand name usage in different product categories.
2. Determination of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) based on advertisement versus packaging label.
3. Requantification of duty based on correct rate applicable on the date.

Issue 1: Interpretation of brand name usage in different product categories:
The appellant argued that even if the brand names are the same, if the products are different, the benefit of exemption cannot be denied. They cited relevant judgments to support their argument. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for decision based on the Tribunal's judgments. The appeal was remanded accordingly.

Issue 2: Determination of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) based on advertisement versus packaging label:
The appellant contended that the MRP should be based on the advertised price in a newspaper, while the Revenue argued that the MRP should be as printed on the packaging. The Tribunal held that there is no provision to consider the newspaper-advertised price as the actual MRP. The assessable value was determined to be the MRP printed on the package, with due abatement as specified under Notification issued under Section 4A. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's determination of the assessable value for Aerated Water and Fruit Beer, directing requantification of duty based on the Commissioner's order.

Issue 3: Requantification of duty based on correct rate applicable on the date:
Regarding the rate of duty determined by the Commissioner, the Department filed additional appeals challenging its correctness. The Tribunal, remanding all matters to the original adjudicating authority, directed that the correct rate of duty applicable on the date should be considered for requantification of the demand. Accordingly, the additional appeals were also remanded for examination by the original adjudicating authority. Stay petitions were disposed of accordingly.