9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (6) TMI 606 - AT - Central ExciseMRP - Demand of duty - penalty - assessee had printed/declared different Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) for different regions - contention of the department is that the above provision is very specific. If more than one retail sale price is declared on a package then the highest of the MRPs has to be taken as the value for the purpose of assessment of goods under Section 4A Held that - since the tomato ketchups which is the product in dispute clearly bears two MRP it is the higher of the MRPs which is to be treated as retail sale price for the purpose of Section 4A and it is immaterial that the respondents herein sold the product at a price not higher than the lower MRPs declared on the product. no scoring out of any MRP. All the MRPs are indicated on the same package although for different regions. demand of duty confirmed by the adjudicating authority has to be sustained and restored. penalty set aside. appeal of the department is allowed
Issues:
Departmental appeal against order-in-appeal setting aside duty demand and penalty under Central Excise Rules, 1944 based on different Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) printed on the same package. Analysis: 1. The case involved a departmental appeal against an order-in-appeal setting aside a duty demand and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority under Central Excise Rules, 1944. The dispute arose from the assessee, engaged in the manufacture of Ice Cream and Ice Candy, declaring different Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) for various regions on the same retail package but discharging duty liability based on the MRP specified for a particular area upon clearance. The department contended that the highest MRP should be considered for assessment under Explanation 2 to sub-section (2) of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The department argued that when multiple MRPs are declared on excisable goods, the highest MRP should be deemed the retail sale price for assessment purposes. They distinguished the current case from a previous judgment involving different MRPs on separate packages, emphasizing that in this instance, multiple MRPs were printed on the same package. The department relied on prior tribunal decisions supporting the assessment based on the highest MRP when different MRPs are printed on the same package. 3. The assessee, on the other hand, relied on a tribunal judgment and a Board's Circular, asserting that different MRPs on the same package were intended for different regions, and duty liability should be discharged based on the MRP specified for the particular region of sale. The assessee argued that the order of the lower appellate authority should be upheld. 4. Upon careful consideration, the tribunal analyzed the relevant legal provisions and precedents. It noted that when multiple MRPs are declared on a package, the highest MRP should be deemed the retail sale price for excise duty assessment. The tribunal distinguished the facts of the current case from previous judgments where different MRPs were printed on separate packages. It upheld the applicability of the highest MRP for excise levy based on legal interpretations and prior tribunal decisions. 5. The tribunal also addressed a Board's Circular concerning scored out MRPs on the same package, clarifying that in the absence of scoring out, all MRPs indicated on the package should be considered. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the lower appellate authority's order, reinstated the duty demand, and waived the penalty due to the interpretative nature of the legal issue. 6. Ultimately, the department's appeal was allowed, confirming the duty demand while setting aside the penalty, as the issue primarily revolved around the interpretation of the law regarding the assessment based on multiple MRPs on the same package.
|
