2013 (10) TMI 613 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - MRP Based value or Transaction Value Either under Rule 4A OR 4 of Central Excise Act - manufacture of cookies and dough classifiable under sub-heading 1905 31 00 and 1902 10 00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 Held that - The appellant is not obliged to declared the Maximum Retail Price on the packages and he has not declared the Maximum Retail Price on the packages supplied by them to their institutional customers at the relevant point, thus availing and enjoying the exemption granted under Rule 34(a) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 and only after initiation of the present proceedings, with a view to illegally claim the benefits under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, he started printing the Maximum Retail Price on the packages being supplied by them to their institutional customers also, which act will not, in any way, absolve them of their liability during the relevant point of time of committing the evasion of duty. The Department is right in contending that the appellant is not entitled to claim any benefit under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, since his goods are chargeable under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Waiver of Pre-deposit - The applicant failed to make out a prima facie case for waiver of entire amount of duty along with interest and penalty the order of the Settlement Commission that the applicant has already paid excess amount Applicant was directed to submit the amount as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty payment on goods under Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Settlement Commission's decision on duty liability.
3. Applicability of Supreme Court's order on deposit amount.
4. Interpretation of Standards of Weights and Measures Rules.
5. Prima facie case for waiver of duty, interest, and penalty.
6. Compliance with deposit directives and stay orders.

Analysis:

1. The judgment concerns a case where the applicant, engaged in the manufacture of cookies and dough, was paying duty on Maximum Retail Price (MRP) value under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Five show-cause notices were issued proposing a duty demand, which was confirmed by the original authority, leading to an appeal dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance with a stay order.

2. The applicant had deposited an amount of duty and approached the Settlement Commission, which determined a reduced duty liability. However, the High Court set aside the Settlement Commission's decision, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed a specific deposit, stayed the penalty recovery, and the applicant sought a similar stay for the present case.

3. The Revenue argued against applying the Supreme Court's decision in a related case, citing amendments to the Standards of Weights and Measures Rules post-2007. They contended that the Settlement Commission's decision and deposit made against one show-cause notice did not apply to the other four notices.

4. The Tribunal noted the Settlement Commission's decision on duty liability and the High Court's ruling on the applicant's obligation to declare MRP on packages. The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for waiving the duty, interest, and penalty, especially considering the excess payment made against one notice.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit a specified amount within a set period, with the waiver of the balance dues pending compliance. The Tribunal also instructed both parties to address the appeal's disposal at the compliance stage due to the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the stay order.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues and the Tribunal's decision in the legal judgment.