9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 785 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - removal of MRP stickers - Revenue entertained a view that such removal of MRP sticker amounts to manufacture, in terms of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 which provides a deeming provision of manufacture - labelling/relabelling not done - Held that - There is no allegation that any new MRP sticker were affixed to the goods in question - Admittedly, the provisions of Section 2(f)(iii) provides deemed manufacture definition only when the goods are labelled or relabelled or MRP is altered, which itself establishes the fact of a fixation of MRP on the goods. In the absence of any allegation of fixation or alteration of MRP, it cannot be said that, manufacture has taken place. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the removal and non-affixing of MRP stickers on imported goods. 2. Determination of whether the removal of MRP stickers without affixing new ones amounts to manufacture under the Central Excise Act. 3. Analysis of the Commissioner (Appeals) decision regarding the confiscation of goods based on the removal of MRP stickers. Analysis: Issue 1: The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 concerning the removal of MRP stickers on imported goods. The Revenue alleged that the respondents were importing home appliances under specific brand names and clearing them by paying customs duty based on the MRP stickers. Subsequent investigations revealed the removal of these stickers without affixing new ones, leading to proceedings against the respondents. Issue 2: The main contention revolved around whether the removal of MRP stickers, without the affixing of new ones, constitutes manufacture under the Central Excise Act. The original adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed penalties, considering the removal of MRP stickers as a manufacturing process. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, stating that the mere removal of MRP stickers without affixing new ones does not amount to manufacture as per Section 2(f) of the Act. Issue 3: The Commissioner (Appeals) based their decision on the premise that the removal of MRP stickers, without the affixing of new ones, does not lead to the alteration of MRP, which is necessary to establish manufacture under the Act. The Commissioner highlighted that no fresh MRP was declared on the goods in question, and the criteria for dutiability and confiscation of goods under Section 2(f) were not fulfilled. Consequently, the Commissioner set aside the impugned order, leading to the Revenue's appeal. In the final judgment, the Member (Judicial) upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), emphasizing that the Revenue's case solely rested on the allegation of MRP sticker removal without any new MRP affixation. Since there was no evidence of affixing or altering the MRP, the provisions of Section 2(f)(iii) regarding deemed manufacture were not met. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected, affirming the Commissioner's decision.
|
