2008 (8) TMI 769 - AT - Central Excise

MRP based valuation - Different retail sale prices marked on different packages of Air-conditioners

Summary

Issues Involved:
Interpretation of Section 4A regarding different retail sale prices on packages of Air Conditioners.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue: Interpretation of Section 4A
The central issue in the appeal was the interpretation of Section 4A concerning the different retail sale prices marked on various packages of Air Conditioners manufactured by the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) granted the assessee the benefit by accepting their argument that the lower Maximum Retail Price (MRP) in Silvassa and the higher MRP in other parts of the country were justified due to considering Silvassa as one area and the rest of the country as another area. The Tribunal noted that Explanation 2(b) of Section 4A did not define the term "area," leading to the acceptance of the appellant's explanation. The Tribunal also referred to a previous decision in the case of CCE, Delhi-II v. Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health Care Ltd. to support the appellant's case.

2. Issue: Consistency with Previous Decision
The Tribunal highlighted a previous decision in the case of M/s. Amtrex Hitachi Appliances Ltd. & Shri Mahesh Agarwal v. CCE, Vapi, where it was determined that affixing different MRPs on various packages did not result in different short levy of duty. The Tribunal ruled that each MRP should be considered as the assessable value for duty payment purposes. By applying the precedent set in the mentioned case, the Tribunal rejected the appeal of the Revenue, thus maintaining consistency in the interpretation and application of the law.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the interpretation of Section 4A in the context of different retail sale prices on Air Conditioner packages. It emphasized the importance of considering legal definitions and past decisions to ensure consistency in applying the law. The Tribunal's decision provided clarity on the issue at hand and established a precedent for future cases involving similar disputes.