2005 (4) TMI 394 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay of impugned order and waiver of pre-deposit of duty.
2. Interpretation of retail price declaration requirements for scented supari sachets.
3. Application of Section 4A(4) of the Central Excise Act regarding confiscation and retail sale price ascertainment.
4. Relevance of Standards of Weights and Measures Act in determining retail sale price.
5. Prima facie case for conditional stay of the impugned order.

Issue 1: Stay of Impugned Order and Waiver of Pre-Deposit of Duty
The appellant sought a stay of the portion of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichirapalli prejudicial to them, along with a waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 23,10,712. The Tribunal granted a conditional stay, directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 7 lakhs with the adjudicating authority within six weeks.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Retail Price Declaration for Scented Supari Sachets
The controversy revolved around whether the retail price mentioned on multi-piece packages of scented supari sufficed, even if individual sachets did not bear the price. The appellant argued that the MRP on packages indicated the price for the material in sachets, not just the number of sachets. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in ITC Ltd. v. CCE, emphasizing standardization of prices and the inapplicability of retail price inquiry by Excise Officers.

Issue 3: Application of Section 4A(4) of the Central Excise Act
Section 4A(4) allows confiscation and ascertainment of retail sale price for goods removed without declaring the price. The Department contended that retail price must be on both multi-piece packages and individual sachets. The Tribunal analyzed the unamended and amended provisions of Section 4A(4) to determine the scope of retail price declaration requirements.

Issue 4: Relevance of Standards of Weights and Measures Act
The Tribunal clarified that the SWM Act's provisions were relevant for identifying goods requiring valuation under Section 4A, not Section 4. The requirement to declare retail price on individual pieces within multi-piece packages under SWM(PC) Rules need not be imposed under Section 4A(4), which focuses on declaring maximum retail sale price on packages.

Issue 5: Prima Facie Case for Conditional Stay of Impugned Order
After detailed analysis, the Tribunal found the appellant had a prima facie case in their favor for granting a conditional stay of the impugned order. The stay was subject to the appellant depositing Rs. 7 lakhs within six weeks to safeguard the Revenue's interests, with a clear indication that the decision on the stay application would not impact arguments during the final hearing.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the various legal issues involved and the Tribunal's decision on each aspect of the case.