9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 305 - AT - Central ExciseMethod of Valuation - area based exemption availed under N/N. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 - manufacture of insecticides, pesticides and selling the goods in finished condition after packing - Revenue is of the view that the assessee is not required to fix MRP on the said goods, as the packets are less than 10 gms, therefore, no MRP is required to be affixed, therefore, duty is to be paid under section 4(A) of the Act. Held that - Tribunal in the case of Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (5) TMI 1342 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH has held that The appellant have made packages for retail sale, they are legally bound to affix MRP of the said goods and it was held that the appellant has correctly discharged their duty liability under Section 4(A) of the Act. The assessee has discharged their duty under Section 4(A) of the Act and the same is correct - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002, requirement of fixing Maximum Retail Price (MRP) on goods, duty payment under Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, excess refund claims by the assessee, applicability of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, legal obligation to affix MRP on goods intended for retail sale. Comprehensive Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Exemption Notification and Duty Payment under Section 4(A): The case involved an assessee located in Jammu and Kashmir availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing insecticides and pesticides, was selling the goods in finished condition after packing and paying duty under Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue contended that MRP was not required on goods weighing less than 10 gms, leading to disputes over excess refund claims made by the assessee. Various show cause notices were issued, some resulting in dropped proceedings while others directed recovery of excess duty paid. Both parties appealed against the orders, prompting a detailed examination of the facts and legal provisions. 2. Applicability of Standards of Weights and Measures Rules: The Tribunal referred to a similar case involving M/s Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. where it was established that goods packed for retail sale must have MRP affixed as per the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The Tribunal emphasized that the obligation to affix MRP on goods intended for retail sale is a legal requirement aimed at consumer protection. It was clarified that the assessment under Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is contingent upon packaging and the mandated declaration, with the Rules serving to ensure consumer awareness and protection. 3. Judicial Precedents and Correct Discharge of Duty Liability: Citing precedents and legal principles, the Tribunal affirmed that the appellant had correctly discharged their duty liability under Section 4(A) of the Act by packaging goods with MRP for retail sale. The Tribunal highlighted the significance of the intention to sell in retail, as evidenced by the printing of prescribed details on packages. It was emphasized that the obligation to affix MRP arises from the producer's intent for retail sale, with the Rules governing such requirements to safeguard consumer interests. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the appeals filed by the assessee, providing consequential relief as deemed necessary. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the legal obligations regarding the affixation of MRP on goods intended for retail sale, emphasizing compliance with the Standards of Weights and Measures Rules to ensure consumer protection and correct discharge of duty liability under Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
|
