9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 587 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - Branded Chewing Tobacco - N/N. 13/2002 - CE(NT) dated 01/03/2002, as amended vide N/N. 10/2003(NT) and dated 01/03/2003 - whether the appellant assessee have paid excise duty correctly under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, instead of Section 4A? - manufacture of 9gm. purias/pouch of their product - Held that - wholesale package have been defined in the Package Commodity Rules as meaning a package containing (i) Retail packages, where such first mentioned package is intended for sale, distribution or delivery to an intermediary and is not intended for sale direct to a single consumer, or (ii) a commodity sold to an intermediary in bulk to enable such intermediary to sell, distribute or deliver such commodity to the consumer in similar quantities, or (iii) packages containing 10 or more than 10 retail packages provided that the retail packages are labeled as required under the Rules. Accordingly, the larger pouches containing more than 10, under the admitted facts, 20/27 Purias are wholesale packages - also, there is no material on record that such wholesale packages were marked with MRP or where intended for retail sale. The appellant was entitled to assessment to duty under the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act in respect of the retail packages in question - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of excise duty payment under Section 4 versus Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Applicability of the extended period of limitation for issuing the show cause notice. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Correctness of Excise Duty Payment under Section 4 versus Section 4A: The primary issue was whether the appellant had correctly paid excise duty under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, instead of Section 4A. The appellant, a manufacturer of branded chewing tobacco, claimed that their product, packed in 9gm pouches, was exempt from marking MRP under Rule 34 of the Standard of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (SWAMPCR). They informed the Assistant Commissioner in letters dated 19/02/2004 and 01/03/2004 that they would assess duty under Section 4 from 01/03/2004. Revenue contended that the exemption under Rule 34(b) of SWAMPCR was not applicable since the products were not sold by weight or measure but by MRP/RSP. They argued that the appellant's products were sold in multi-piece packages (20/27 pouches) and thus should be assessed under Section 4A, which requires MRP-based assessment. The Revenue relied on the Apex Court's ruling in Jayanti Food Processing Private Ltd versus CCE, Rajasthan, and other precedents to support their claim. The Tribunal examined the definition of wholesale packages under the Package Commodity Rules, which includes packages intended for sale to intermediaries and not directly to consumers. It found that the larger pouches containing 20/27 purias were wholesale packages and not intended for retail sale. There was no evidence that these wholesale packages were marked with MRP or sold in retail. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to assess duty under Section 4 for the retail packages in question. 2. Applicability of the Extended Period of Limitation: The second issue was whether the show cause notice was barred by the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal did not find sufficient grounds to justify the invocation of the extended period of limitation. The appellant had regularly filed returns and paid taxes as assessed under Section 4, and there was no evidence of suppression of facts or willful misstatement. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had correctly assessed excise duty under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for the retail packages in question. The larger pouches were considered wholesale packages not intended for retail sale and thus not subject to MRP-based assessment under Section 4A. The show cause notices were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential benefits to the appellants.
|
