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 Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2012 (6) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2012 (6) TMI 561 - AT - Customs


Issues:
1. Assessment of imported goods based on MRP
2. Applicability of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977
3. Exemption under Rule 2A of the PC Rules for industrial consumers

Issue 1: Assessment of imported goods based on MRP

The appeal involved a dispute regarding the assessment of imported goods by M/s. Henkel CAC Pvt. Ltd. based on the Maximum Retail Price (MRP). The Customs department contended that CVD should be paid on the imported goods as MRP was not declared on the 20 kg packaging. The appellant challenged this assessment before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who upheld the decision. The main contention was whether the goods imported in 20 kg packages should be assessed based on MRP.

Issue 2: Applicability of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977

The appellant argued that the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 are applicable only to packages intended for retail sale. They claimed that since the imported Hot Melt Adhesive was sold to industrial consumers and commission agents, it should be exempt from affixing MRP on the packages. The dispute centered around whether the PC Rules applied to the imported packages meant for industrial consumers.

Issue 3: Exemption under Rule 2A of the PC Rules for industrial consumers

The key issue revolved around the interpretation of Rule 2A of the PC Rules, which exempts packaged commodities meant for industrial consumers or institutional consumers from certain provisions. The department argued that the appellant did not qualify as a manufacturer or packer under the rule, thus not entitled to exemption. However, the appellant claimed that they should be considered a manufacturer as they put their brand name on the imported packages, indicating possible manufacturing. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the original authority for the appellant to provide evidence supporting their claim of selling goods to industrial consumers and being eligible for exemption under Rule 2A.

This judgment highlights the importance of proper classification and assessment of imported goods based on MRP, the applicability of PC Rules to packages intended for industrial consumers, and the criteria for exemption under Rule 2A for such consumers. The decision emphasizes the need for evidence and verification to determine eligibility for exemptions under relevant rules and regulations.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates