2019 (2) TMI 1025 - AT - Central Excise

Method of valuation - Goods supplied to Defence, CRPF and BSF - requirement to print MRP - Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - Once the goods are specified by the Central Government in the Notification issued under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944, the provisions of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 are not operational in respect of such goods - the differential duty is worked out in respect of such goods which are notified under Section 4A ibid by adopting the provisions of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. Sub-section (2) of Section 4A does not allow such adoption of value for the purpose of assessment of duty. Therefore, there was no differential duty payable by the appellant. There were no allegations in the show cause notice taking into consideration the provisions of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 that there was any differential duty payable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Central Excise duty confirmation against the manufacturer-appellant
- Imposition of penalties on the manufacturer-appellant and the Director of the manufacturing company
- Interpretation of provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944
- Assessment of duty based on MRP under Notification No.49/2008-CE(N.T.) dated 24.12.2008

Central Excise Duty Confirmation and Penalties:
The appeals arose from an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Kanpur, confirming Central Excise duty of approximately ?3 crores against the manufacturer-appellant. Additionally, equal penalties were imposed on the manufacturer-appellant and a personal penalty of ?30 lakhs on the Director of the manufacturing company. The manufacturer-appellant was involved in manufacturing footwear under Chapter 64 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They supplied goods to organizations like CRPF, BSF, and Ministry of Defence, availing benefits under Entry No.180 of Notification No.12/2012-CE. Allegations were made that the goods supplied to defense organizations did not require MRP printing and should be assessed under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A show cause notice was issued, leading to the confirmation of the demand and imposition of penalties upon contest.

Interpretation of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944:
The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which allow the Central Government to specify goods where MRP declaration is required. Once goods are specified under this section, the provisions of Section 4 of the Act are not applicable to such goods. The differential duty computation was based on Section 4 provisions for goods notified under Section 4A, which was deemed incorrect. Sub-section (2) of Section 4A prohibits adopting such valuation for duty assessment. The Tribunal concluded that no differential duty was payable by the appellant, as the show cause notice did not allege any duty payable under Section 4A.

Assessment Based on MRP under Notification No.49/2008-CE(N.T.):
The Tribunal highlighted that footwear was notified for MRP-based assessment under Notification No.49/2008-CE(N.T.), issued under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The provisions of Section 4A clearly indicate that once goods are specified, Section 4 provisions are not operational for such goods. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing both appeals and entitling the appellant to consequential relief as per law.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's detailed analysis of the Central Excise duty confirmation, penalties imposed, interpretation of Section 4A, and assessment based on MRP under relevant notifications led to the setting aside of the impugned order and the allowance of both appeals. The judgment clarified the applicability of Section 4A provisions and emphasized the correct assessment methodology for goods specified under MRP-based notifications.