9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1187 - AT - Central ExciseMethod of Valuation - Glues and adhesives - MRP based valuation or transaction value - held that - Both lower authorities have confirmed the demands raised on the appellant on the ground that they have wrongly adopted MRP based assessment under the provisions of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is noted from the records that the products Glues and adhesives were falling under Chapter 35 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; but the packing of the products manufactured by the appellant were indicating that they were supplied to industrial consumers and hence they were not covered by the provisions of Standards of Weight and Measurement Act, 1976 - As against such factual finding, the appellant in the grounds of appeal have not controverted the fact that they were selling the goods to industrial consumers, and also whether they have affixed MRP or not. In the absence of any evidence, we find that the first appellate authority has correctly upheld the demands raised and confirmed against the appellant. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Whether the demands raised on the appellant for wrongly adopting MRP based assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are justified? Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PI/153/2004 dated 03.12.2004. The appellants sought a decision on the issue on merits. The lower authorities had confirmed the demands raised on the appellant, stating that they incorrectly adopted MRP based assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The products in question, "Glues and adhesives," were classified under Chapter 35 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The packing of the products indicated they were supplied to industrial consumers, thus not covered by the provisions of the Standards of Weight and Measurement Act, 1976. The first appellate authority found that the appellants had correctly marked the packages as "for industrial use," fulfilling the conditions of Rule 34. The appellant did not provide evidence to counter the fact that they sold goods to industrial consumers. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the demands raised against the appellant, concluding that the first appellate authority's decision was correct. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the interpretation and application of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 34 of the Standards of Weight and Measurement Act, 1976. The Tribunal noted that the products in question were specifically packed for industrial use, exempting them from MRP requirements under Rule 34. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of factual evidence in such cases, highlighting that the appellant's failure to provide evidence regarding the sale of goods to industrial consumers weakened their appeal. The Tribunal's decision rested on the correct application of the relevant legal provisions and the factual findings of the first appellate authority. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and rejected it. The judgment underscores the significance of complying with statutory provisions and providing factual evidence to support claims in excise duty matters. The decision reaffirms the principle that exemptions must be substantiated with clear evidence, and failure to do so can result in the confirmation of demands raised by tax authorities.
|
