Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2008 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2008 (2) TMI 645 - HC - Central Excise


Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of goods for the purpose of Excise duty under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Applicability of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 to the seized goods.
3. Definition and applicability of "pre-packed commodity."
4. Determination of whether the goods are sold by weight, measure, or number.
5. Applicability of rules to retail packages and retail sales.
6. Interpretation of "industrial or institutional consumer" under the rules.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Valuation of Goods for the Purpose of Excise Duty:
The primary issue was whether the excise duty should be charged under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court referred to Circular No. 625/16/2002-CX., which clarified that Section 4A applies only if the manufacturer is legally obliged to print the MRP on the packages under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 or any other law for the time being in force.

2. Applicability of Standards of Weights and Measures Act and Rules:
The respondent No. 6 determined that the seized goods were intended for retail sale and thus had to comply with the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The petitioners argued that the packaging was for protection during transit and storage, not for retail sale, and thus should not fall within the definition of "pre-packed commodity." This contention was rejected by the respondent.

3. Definition and Applicability of "Pre-packed Commodity":
The court examined the definition of "pre-packed commodity" before and after its amendment on 14-1-2007. The court referred to previous judgments, including Titan Industries Ltd. v. U.O.I., which held that a commodity must have a predetermined value to be considered pre-packed. The Supreme Court in Whirlpool India Ltd. v. Union of India confirmed that a refrigerator packed in a polythene cover and placed in hardboard cartons is a pre-packed commodity. Thus, the court held that the seized goods were pre-packed commodities.

4. Determination of Whether Goods are Sold by Weight, Measure, or Number:
The court noted that the package description mentioned "one unit," indicating that the goods were sold by number. The Supreme Court's judgment in Whirlpool implicitly rejected the contention that a single unit could not be sold by weight, measure, or number. The court held that even one item in a package falls within the definition of pre-packed commodity.

5. Applicability of Rules to Retail Packages and Retail Sales:
The court examined whether the rules applied to retail packages and retail sales. The petitioners argued that their goods were not intended for retail sale to the ultimate consumer but were specialized goods used in industrial applications. The court referred to Rule 2A and Rule 3, which exclude packages meant for industrial or institutional consumers who buy directly from manufacturers or packers. The court held that the rules apply to all other retail sales of pre-packed commodities.

6. Interpretation of "Industrial or Institutional Consumer":
The court analyzed the definitions of "retail dealer," "retail package," "retail sale," and "retail sale price" under the rules. The court held that the explanation of "industrial or institutional consumer" in Rule 2A must be read into the proviso to Rule 2(p) for the purpose of Chapter II. The court concluded that the rules apply to all retail sales of pre-packed commodities, except those sold directly to institutional or industrial consumers as explained in Rule 2A.

Conclusion:
The court found no infirmity in the order dated 6th July 2007 and held that the seized goods were pre-packed commodities subject to the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The petitioners' arguments were rejected, and the rule was discharged with no orders as to costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates