2008 (8) TMI 77 - AT - Central Excise

Packages for free supply with another product MRP based valuation department claim valuation of those packages u/s 4A - unless there is an element of sale (as contemplated in Section 2(v)), Rule 6(1 )(f) will not be attracted and thus such package would not be governed under the provisions of SWM (PC) Rules which would clearly take such package out of the restricted arena of Section 4A(1) and would put it in the broader arena of Section 4 assessee s appeal allowed

Summary

Issues:
Valuation under Section 4A for toothpaste supplied without MRP affixed.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the valuation of toothpaste supplied without the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) affixed on the packages. The appellant, a toothpaste manufacturer, supplied toothpaste without MRP for free distribution along with another product under a sales promotion scheme. The authorities applied valuation under Section 4A, leading to duty demands and penalties on the appellant. The appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a Tribunal decision that was later overruled by the Supreme Court in a different case. The Supreme Court held that the application of Section 4A for valuation required a sale to be established first.

The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions from both sides and noted the reversal of the Tribunal decision by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal highlighted the specific requirements under the Standards of Weights & Measures Act regarding the declaration of MRP on packages. It emphasized that for Rule 6(1)(f) to be applicable, there must be an element of sale as defined in the SWM Act. The Tribunal concluded that without a sale as per Section 2(v), Rule 6(1)(f) would not be attracted, thereby excluding such packages from the scope of Section 4A(1) and placing them under Section 4 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the Supreme Court's decision and provided consequential relief to the appellant.

In summary, the judgment revolved around the application of valuation under Section 4A for toothpaste supplied without MRP affixed. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and the impact of the Supreme Court's decision on the case. By emphasizing the necessity of a sale for the application of Section 4A and the specific requirements under the SWM Act, the Tribunal clarified the scope of valuation in such scenarios. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant based on the principles established by the Supreme Court.