2015 (5) TMI 1222 - AT - Customs

Levy of countervailing duty - import of Cyanoacrylate Adhesive Alteco - method of valuation - HELD THAT - Revenue s grounds of appeal only talks about statutory requirement to declare retail price as per the Standards Weights and Measures (Packed Commodities) Rules 1977 and there being no exemption for declaration. Besides this there are no other grounds of appeal urged in the impugned order. Ld. Departmental Representative s contention that it would fall under the category of goods covered under MRP retained is also without any persuasive value for us to hold that the impugned order is erroneous. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Discharge of countervailing duty on import of Cyanoacrylate Adhesive Alteco under CTH 3506 91 90 based on retail sale price.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Discharge of countervailing duty on import of Cyanoacrylate Adhesive Alteco
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal regarding the discharge of countervailing duty on the import of Cyanoacrylate Adhesive Alteco. The imported consignment was classified under CTH 3506 91 90, covered under the Notification for discharge of Central Excise duty based on retail sale price. The Revenue contended that the appellant imported the adhesive and sold it domestically under a specific MRP. The Adjudicating Authority held against the assessee, ordering the valuation of the goods for CVD purposes under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, confiscating the goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine, and imposing a penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 2: First Appellate Authority's Findings
The first appellate authority set aside the impugned order after considering the facts, documents, and arguments from both sides. The authority noted that the goods were classified under CTH 3506 91 90, accepted by the department through the RMS scheme. It was observed that the goods were in bulk packing, not retail packing, and not covered under the Standards of Weight & Measures Act, 1976. The authority referred to a Board Circular and a precedent case to support the appellant's claim that the goods should be assessed to CVD under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, not under Section 4A. The appellate authority emphasized the importance of the goods being sold to the ultimate consumer, which was not the case here.

Issue 3: Revenue's Grounds of Appeal
The Revenue's grounds of appeal did not provide any evidence to counter the findings of the first appellate authority. The grounds only mentioned the statutory requirement to declare retail price as per the Standards Weights and Measures Rules, 1977, without any other substantial arguments. The Departmental Representative's contention regarding the categorization of goods under MRP was deemed unpersuasive by the Tribunal.

Conclusion
The Tribunal found that the impugned order was correct and legal, without any infirmity, and rejected the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper classification and assessment of goods for CVD purposes based on relevant legal provisions and precedents.