Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 157 - AT - Central ExciseValuation Quantity discount not available on goods contained in Multi-pack MRP printed on the multi-pack will be taken for purpose of section 4A - Whether the clearance of colour TV sets by M/s. Prisma Electronics by paying duty under Section 4A of the Act was appropriate or they were required to discharge duty liability in terms of section 4 of Central Excise Act - Held that - MRP was adopted by M/s. Dixon Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd for further sale of the Televisions to M/s. Elecot. As such, it is not a case where the MRP was subsequently enhanced in the hands of buyers - even if where the sale is through related person and the goods are specified goods in terms of 4A it is section 4A which would be attracted for the purpose of assessment - this is sole reason adopted by the Commissioner for denial of section 4A assessment, we set aside the impugned order - Decision in the case of Indica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE 2007 (5) TMI 19 - CESTAT,AHMEDABAD followed - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Applicability of Section 4A vs. Section 4 of the Central Excise Act in the clearance of color TV sets. 2. Interpretation of related party transactions in excise duty assessment. 3. Legal dispute regarding the assessment of duty liability in the case of related party transactions. Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses the dispute concerning the appropriate duty liability on the clearance of color TV sets by M/s. Prisma Electronics. The issue revolves around whether duty should be paid under Section 4A or Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The Revenue contended that since M/s. Dixon Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. was a related party to M/s. Prisma Electronics and all sales were made to them, Section 4 should apply. Consequently, demands were raised and confirmed based on Section 4. 2. The Tribunal observed that there was no disagreement regarding the maximum retail price (MRP) of the color TV sets, which was Rs. 2740.40 per piece. M/s. Dixon Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. adopted this MRP for further sales to M/s. Elecot. The MRP remained unchanged in the hands of the buyers, indicating that there was no subsequent enhancement. 3. The Commissioner's rationale for applying Section 4 instead of Section 4A was the relationship between M/s. Dixon Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Prisma Electronics as related parties. The Tribunal referred to a precedent set by a Larger Bench decision in the case of Indica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, where it was established that sales through related parties do not affect the assessment under Section 4A. The Larger Bench emphasized that Section 4A prevails over Section 4, even in cases of sales through related parties for specified goods. 4. Considering the legal precedent and the Commissioner's sole reason for rejecting Section 4A assessment, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed all four appeals, providing consequential relief to the appellants. The judgment highlights the importance of legal interpretation and precedence in excise duty assessments involving related party transactions. Conclusion: The judgment clarifies the application of Section 4A over Section 4 in excise duty assessments, particularly in cases involving related party transactions. It underscores the significance of legal provisions and precedents in determining duty liability, ensuring fair and consistent treatment in such matters.
|