9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 718 - AT - Central ExciseMethod of Valuation - transaction value or MRP based value - supplies made to institutional consumers - case of the department is that the sale made to institutional consumers is not meant for retail sale, therefore, the valuation of such goods should be done under Section 4 read with Standards of Weights and Measures (Packages Commodities), Rules, 1977 - Held that - though the goods were sold to institutional consumer but admittedly MRP was affixed on such product. Due to this reason goods were manufactured with intention to sale in retail market that goods are intended to be sold in retail and MRP is affixed. Therefore valuation for of charging excise duty should be under Section 4A even though the goods are sold to the institutional buyer - even though the package of the goods is marked for industrial use but since the goods bore the MRP, the valuation should be done under Section 4A and not under Section 4 of the CEA, 1944. The valuation adopted by the appellant under Section 4A is correct and legal - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the valuation of aerated water sold to institutional consumers should be done under Section 4A or Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Detailed Analysis: Valuation Under Section 4A vs. Section 4: The primary issue in this case revolves around the appropriate method for valuing aerated water sold to institutional consumers. The appellant argued that since the aerated water packages bore the Maximum Retail Price (MRP), they should be valued under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The department, however, contended that sales to institutional consumers were not meant for retail sale and thus should be valued under Section 4. Appellant's Argument: The appellant, represented by Shri Rajesh Ostwal, argued that the presence of MRP on the packages indicated that the goods were intended for retail sale. He cited several judgments to support his claim, including: - CCE Vs. Liberty Shoes Ltd.: The Supreme Court held that if MRP is affixed on the goods, the valuation should be under Section 4A. - Nitco Tiles Vs. CCE: The Tribunal found that goods affixed with MRP and sold in bulk to institutional consumers should still be valued under Section 4A. - Mexim Adhesive Tapes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE: It was established that if MRP is required and affixed, the assessment must be under Section 4A unless the package is clearly marked for industrial use. - Jayanthi Food Processing (P) Ltd Vs. CCE: The Supreme Court held that goods sold in packages with MRP should be valued under Section 4A, regardless of whether they are sold in bulk. - Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. Vs. CCE: The Tribunal ruled that goods sold with MRP, even if in bulk, should be assessed under Section 4A. - Philips Electronics (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE: The Tribunal held that goods with MRP should be valued under Section 4A unless explicitly marked for industrial use. Respondent's Argument: Shri H.M. Dixit, representing the Revenue, reiterated the findings of the impugned order, stating that since the aerated water was sold to institutional consumers, it was not meant for retail sale. Therefore, Section 4 should apply. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions from both sides and reviewed relevant case laws. It found that: - The goods were sold with MRP affixed, indicating an intention for retail sale. - Previous judgments consistently held that goods with MRP should be valued under Section 4A, even if sold in bulk to institutional consumers. - The Tribunal noted that the appellant had correctly discharged the duty under Section 4A, as the goods were intended for retail sale. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the valuation of the aerated water sold to institutional consumers should be under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, due to the presence of MRP on the packages. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Judgment: The valuation adopted by the appellant under Section 4A was deemed correct and legal. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, affirming that the goods should be valued under Section 4A due to the affixed MRP, even when sold to institutional consumers.
|
