2008 (1) TMI 58 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants were directed to declare MRP of electrothermic appliances used as insect repellant imported by them for purpose of MRP based CVD assessment u/s 4A CEA - appellants pleaded that they are to be treated as the manufacturers of the goods, as they affix their own brand name and hence fall within the definition of manufacturer as per Rule 2 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules plea not considered by comm.. so matter remanded

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Central Excise Notification No. 2/2006 regarding MRP based CVD assessment for electrothermic appliances.
2. Applicability of MRP based CVD assessment to goods made for supply to institutional consumers.
3. Definition of "manufacturer" under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977.
4. Consideration of a plea not raised before the Commissioner during the appeal process.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal against the Commissioner of Customs' order directing the declaration of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of electrothermic appliances for MRP based CVD assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Central Excise Notification No. 2/2006 specified that certain electrothermic appliances are subject to MRP based CVD assessment under Customs Tariff Heading 85.16.

2. The importers contended that the goods were intended for supply to institutional consumers, seeking exemption from MRP based CVD assessment under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. However, the claim was rejected as the importers were not the manufacturers or packers for the service industry, the two exempted categories under Rule 2A of the said Rules.

3. The appellants raised a new plea before the Tribunal, arguing that they should be considered as manufacturers of the goods because they affixed their brand name on the products. They claimed to fall within the definition of "manufacturer" as per Rule 2 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977. This plea, though not presented before the Commissioner, was deemed crucial for determining the importers' eligibility for exemption under Rule 2A.

4. The Tribunal found the new plea to be fundamental to the case and ordered a remand to the Commissioner for a fresh decision. The Commissioner was directed to consider the plea, set aside the earlier order, and provide the appellants with a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The appeal was allowed on remand, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant arguments for a just decision.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, and the legal implications of the decision rendered in the case.