9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (7) TMI 728 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - Glues - Section 4A of the Central Excise Act - Held that - Larger Bench in in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Urison Cosmetics Ltd. 2006 (2) TMI 19 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , held that as cosmetics were to be sold by weight or volume, quantities of Cosmetics weighing less than 10 gms, even though contained in multi-pack sachets, would be exempt under Rule 34(b) ibid. from the requirement of declaration of MRP and thereby from the application of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act - as the subject goods (glues) are required under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 to be sold by weight and, by reason thereof, the goods in the form it was removed during the period of dispute would be exempt under Rule 34(b) from declaration of MRP - appeal dismissed - decided against revenue.
Issues: Assessment of duty under Section 4 vs. Section 4A of the Central Excise Act for goods cleared during 1999-2000.
Analysis: The appeal by the Revenue was against the lower appellate authority's order assessing the subject goods cleared by the respondents during 1999-2000 under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The Revenue sought the goods to be assessed under Section 4A, leading to a demand for differential duty of Rs. 53,500. The original authority accepted this proposal, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this decision, prompting the Revenue's appeal. Upon hearing arguments, the Tribunal referred to a Larger Bench decision in a similar case involving the valuation of a brand of hair dye. The Tribunal noted that the goods in question, glues, were required by the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, to be sold by weight. Citing the Larger Bench decision, the Tribunal held that goods weighing less than 10 gms and sold in multi-pack sachets were exempt from the requirement of declaring Maximum Retail Price (MRP) under Rule 34(b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977. Therefore, the goods in the form they were removed during the dispute period were exempt from the application of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. In line with the precedent set by the Larger Bench decision and consistent application in similar cases, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the subject goods (glues) were exempt from MRP declaration requirements and, consequently, from assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, the arguments presented, the relevant legal provisions, and the Tribunal's decision based on precedent and statutory interpretation.
|
