9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 962 - AT - Central ExciseMethod of Valuation - goods sold to the wholesale dealer in boxes of 100 pieces each - MRP based Valuation u/s 4A or transaction value u/s 4? - Held that - The appellants are not liable to pay duty in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and they have paid duty correctly under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - the issue is decided in the appellant own case M/S STERLING TOOLS LTD, SHRI ATUL AGGARWAL, DIRECTOR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, FARIDABAD 2015 (10) TMI 1991 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that As per Rule 29 of the said rules the appellant were not required to affix MRP on the product which were cleared as wholesale packages, therefore, the provisions of the SWM (PC) Rules are not applicable to the facts of this case which is squarely covered by the guidelines issued by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Jayanti Food Processing (P) Ltd. 2007 (8) TMI 3 - Supreme Court - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Applicability of Central Excise duty on goods sold to wholesale dealer in boxes. 2. Interpretation of Standard of Weight and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977. 3. Valuation of goods under Section 4 and Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Issue 1: Applicability of Central Excise duty on goods sold to wholesale dealer in boxes: The appellants, manufacturers of fasteners, were charged Central Excise duty under Notification No. 11/2006-CE on goods sold to a wholesale dealer in boxes of 100 pieces each. Show cause notices were issued invoking the extended period of limitation to demand duty under Section 4A of the Act. The Tribunal noted that in a previous case, it was held that the appellants are liable to pay duty under Section 4 and not under Section 4A. The Tribunal analyzed the definition of wholesale packages under the Standard of Weight and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977, concluding that the appellants were clearing goods in wholesale packages to distributors for sale in smaller quantities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that the appellants correctly paid duty under Section 4. Issue 2: Interpretation of Standard of Weight and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977: The Tribunal examined Rule 2(x) defining wholesale packages and Rule 2(J) defining multi-piece packages. Rule 29 required declarations on wholesale packages, specifying the name, address, and identity of the commodity. The Tribunal found that the appellants were not required to declare retail sale price on wholesale packages. By analyzing the rules and definitions, the Tribunal determined that the appellants were selling goods in wholesale packages as per Rule 2(x), thereby not necessitating the application of SWM (PC) Rules to the case. Issue 3: Valuation of goods under Section 4 and Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The Tribunal referred to the guidelines set by the Apex Court in Jayanti Food Processing (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, emphasizing factors for goods to be valued under Section 4A. As the appellants were not required to affix MRP on products sold as wholesale packages, the Tribunal held that the provisions of SWM (PC) Rules did not apply. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants correctly valued their goods under Section 4, based on transaction value. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed without delving into the issue of limitation. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that they were not liable to pay duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and had correctly paid duty under Section 4.
|
