2018 (5) TMI 1342 - AT - Central Excise

Method of Valuation - packages were packed in bigger boxes of 15-20 packs - Revenue entertained a view that the appellant is required to assess the goods under Section 4 and has availed excess refund which is illegal - Held that - the appellant packed pouches of insecticides of less than or 10 gms/10 ml and these pouches but in bigger pack on which MRP is printed. MRP is printed on the pouches and these goods are made for retail sale and the appellant is required to affix MRP in terms of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities), Rules, 1977. These facts are not disputed. The appellant have made packages for retail sale, they are legally bound to affix MRP of the said goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Assessment under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 for packaged goods with Maximum Retail Price printed on them.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of pesticides and insecticides, appealed against an order where the Revenue alleged excess refund due to incorrect assessment under Section 4. The appellant packaged insecticides in boxes with MRP printed, paying duty under Section 4A after availing abatement. The Revenue contended that goods should be assessed under Section 4, leading to a show cause notice with demand confirmation under section 11A(1) and penalty under section 11AC. The appellant argued that the packaged goods were for retail sale, correctly paying duty under section 4A, citing the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's goods were intended for retail sale with MRP printed, as per the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. Referring to a similar case, it was clarified that assessment under Section 4A requires MRP printing, mandated by the Rules to protect consumers and enforced at the point of retail sale. The intention for retail sale is demonstrated by MRP printing, and the duty liability under section 4A is discharged when goods are packaged for retail sale. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

This judgment primarily dealt with the correct assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for goods intended for retail sale with Maximum Retail Price printed on them. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of MRP printing as mandated by the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 to protect consumers and ensure clarity in packaged goods for retail sale. The decision highlighted that the duty liability under Section 4A is discharged when goods are packaged for retail sale with MRP affixed, reflecting the producer's intent for retail marketing. The judgment clarified that the enforcement of MRP printing is essential at the point of retail sale, demonstrating the producer's intention and benefiting consumers. By analyzing the legal provisions and the appellant's arguments, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant correctly discharged duty liability under Section 4A for goods packaged for retail sale, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.