2014 (6) TMI 513 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposi - Fixure of MRP on boxes - Held that - Adjudicating authority has clearly recorded in his finding that the appellant is not affixing RSP on their boxes. As regards the goods imported by the appellant, the same goods are cleared from customs area on payment of customs duty and CVD. It is common sense that CVD is discharged on the said products only if the RSP is affixed on the said boxes. At this juncture, we find that the appellant is able to make out prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved. Accordingly, the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till disposal of appeals - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty, interest, and penalty.
2. Discharge of duty liability on goods with affixed labels and MRP.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a stay petition filed by the appellant for the waiver of pre-deposit of an amount confirmed as Central Excise duty, interest, and penalty. Despite the absence of representation from the appellant, the Tribunal proceeded with the matter since the stay petition was filed in February 2011. The Tribunal noted the amount in question as Rs. 3,33,598/- and proceeded to examine the issue at hand.

2. The central issue in this case revolves around the duty liability concerning goods with labels indicating the trading entity's logo. The Revenue contended that affixing Maximum Retail Price (MRP) on the boxes constituted manufacturing under Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, upon reviewing the submissions and the adjudicating authority's order, it was observed that the appellant did not affix Retail Selling Price (RSP) on their boxes. Additionally, the goods imported were cleared after payment of customs duty and Countervailing Duty (CVD), which is typically done only when RSP is affixed.

3. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by the learned Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) and the adjudicating authority's findings. It was noted that the appellant had made a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit based on the absence of RSP on the boxes. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the application for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved and stayed the recovery until the disposal of appeals. This decision was made after a thorough examination of the facts and legal provisions.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in this case highlights the importance of examining the specific details and legal requirements concerning duty liability on goods. By carefully assessing the submissions and relevant provisions, the Tribunal made a reasoned decision to grant the appellant's request for the waiver of pre-deposit. The judgment underscores the significance of adherence to statutory provisions and the need for a prima facie case to support such requests in legal proceedings.