2016 (2) TMI 533 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - various cosmetic products - Transaction Value u/s 4 or MRP based value u/s 4A - technical professional products meant for professional use in salons - these products used by the professional in the hair style business - Held that - it is clear from the records that the products professional technical products are sold by the appellant through the dealers and wholesalers to the salons and beauty parlors for their consumption, the fact which is not disputed in the appeal. If that be so, we find that the learned adjudicating authority was correct in holding that the respondent was not in error in discharging the duty liability on the clearance made by them of these products to salons and beauty parlors under the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Decided against the revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the products sold to salons should be assessed under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act.
2. The applicability of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977.
3. The classification of products as retail or wholesale packages.
4. The relevance of the Legal Metrology Department's opinion.
5. The invocation of the extended period for the demand.
6. The interpretation of the term "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Assessment Under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act:
The core issue was whether the technical professional products sold to salons should be assessed under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal held that the products were correctly assessed under Section 4A, as they were sold in retail packages with MRP/RSP affixed, intended for use by salons and beauty parlors. The adjudicating authority had correctly applied the law, stating that products sold through dealers to salons for their exclusive use must bear MRP/RSP and be assessed under Section 4A.

2. Applicability of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977:
The Tribunal examined the applicability of the said Rules, particularly Rule 2A, which exempts certain products from affixing MRP/RSP if sold directly to institutional or industrial consumers. The adjudicating authority concluded that since the products were sold through dealers to salons, they did not fall under the exemption and were subject to the Standards of Weights and Measures Act. The Tribunal upheld this interpretation, noting that the products were sold in retail packages and thus required to have MRP/RSP.

3. Classification of Products as Retail or Wholesale Packages:
The Tribunal addressed the classification of products, distinguishing between retail and wholesale packages. It was noted that the professional technical products were sold to salons for their use and not for resale, making them retail packages. The adjudicating authority cited the Bombay High Court's ruling in the L&T case, which clarified that products sourced from dealers must comply with the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, and bear MRP/RSP.

4. Relevance of the Legal Metrology Department's Opinion:
The Tribunal considered the opinion of the Legal Metrology Department, which initially stated that the products were covered under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act. Although the department later withdrew this opinion, the Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had correctly relied on the initial clarification. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue's argument against its own circular was not tenable, and the subsequent withdrawal of the opinion did not affect the adjudication.

5. Invocation of the Extended Period for the Demand:
The Tribunal did not explicitly address the invocation of the extended period for the demand, as the findings on the merits were sufficient to uphold the adjudicating authority's order. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had discharged duty liability based on a bona fide belief that the products were correctly assessed under Section 4A, and there was no willful contravention of the provisions.

6. Interpretation of the Term "Consumer" Under the Consumer Protection Act:
The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's interpretation of the term "consumer" as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. It was concluded that salons, which use the products for providing services to their customers, qualify as consumers. The adjudicating authority had relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Laxmi Engineering Works, which stated that individuals using goods for earning their livelihood through self-employment are consumers. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, affirming that the products sold to salons were for retail sale and subject to Section 4A.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's order, concluding that the products sold to salons were correctly assessed under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, affirming that the products were retail packages requiring MRP/RSP and that the salons were consumers under the Consumer Protection Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on the correct application of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, and relevant legal precedents.

← Previous Next →