9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 906 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - Superfine Spray Plaster - Retail Sale Price in terms of Section 4A or transaction value in terms of Section 4 of the CEA, 1944 - supply of Superfine Spray Plaster in bulk from NCC-Maytas for their consumption in construction - Held that - decision in the case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. Mysore Cements Ltd. 2010 (8) TMI 246 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT relied upon where it was held that construction activity has been considered as a service industry by the Finance Ministry - general construction work for building, general construction work for civil engineering installation and assembly work building, completion and finishing work and assessee is treated as a service industry. The clearances of surface coating material supplied by the appellant in 25 kg PP bags to NCC-Maytas will fall under the ambit of exemption from affixation of MRP as envisaged in Rule 34/amended Rule 2A of SWM (PC) Rules - valuation to be done u/s 4 as transaction value - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the goods should be assessed based on Retail Sale Price under Section 4A or on the transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Applicability of exemption under Rule 34 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. 3. Interpretation of "servicing any industry" and whether construction industry qualifies as a service industry. Detailed Analysis: 1. Assessment Basis: Retail Sale Price vs. Transaction Value The primary issue was whether the goods, specifically Superfine Spray Plaster, should be assessed based on the Retail Sale Price (RSP) under Section 4A or on the transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that the goods were supplied in bulk to M/s. NCC-Maytas for captive consumption in the construction industry, marked "NOT FOR RESALE," and thus should be assessed based on transaction value. The Adjudicating Authority initially accepted this view but disallowed certain deductions. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, holding that the goods did not qualify for exemption under Rule 34 due to lack of specific markings and because they were finished products, not raw materials. 2. Exemption under Rule 34 of SWM (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 The appellant contended that the goods were exempt from the requirement to declare RSP under Rule 34(1)(a) of the SWM Rules, as they were specially packed for exclusive use in the construction industry. They argued that the use of Surface Coating Material in construction qualifies as servicing an industry, thus meeting the criteria for exemption. The learned Advocate supported this argument with case laws, including the Apex Court's decision in Jayanthi Food Processing (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, which held that goods supplied for servicing an industry are exempt from RSP declaration. 3. Interpretation of "Servicing Any Industry" The appellant further argued that the construction industry qualifies as a service industry, and thus the supply of Surface Coating Material for captive use in construction should be considered as servicing the industry. This interpretation was supported by the Karnataka High Court's decision in CCE, Bangalore vs. Mysore Cements Ltd., which recognized construction as a service industry under various statutes. The Tribunal also referenced the Grasim Industries case, which upheld similar contentions regarding goods sold for servicing an industry. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal found that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Jayanthi Food Processing case had established that goods supplied for servicing any industry are exempt from RSP declaration under Rule 34. The Tribunal noted that the facts of the ITEL Industries case, relied upon by the Department, were distinguishable and not applicable to the present case. The Tribunal also recognized that the construction industry is considered a service industry, as supported by the Mysore Cements case and the Grasim Industries case. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the clearances of Surface Coating Material supplied by the appellant in 25 kg PP bags to NCC-Maytas are exempt from affixation of MRP under Rule 34/amended Rule 2A of the SWM (PC) Rules. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential benefits as per law.
|
