2008 (1) TMI 65 - AT - Central Excise

Clearance of Ceramic Glazed Tiles to different areas of the country and declaring different MRPs revenue plea is rejectable that non-mentioning of the area on the packages is in contravention of explanation to 2(c) of Sec 4A so adoption of lower MRP can t be challenged if there is no evidence that goods carrying lower MRP for particular area has been sold at higher MRP also sale of tiles to institutional/project buyers having reduced MRP is not same as contract price so not challengeable

Issues:
1. Appeal against demand of duty and imposition of penalty for different periods.
2. Non-mentioning of area on packages for goods cleared.
3. Selling goods to institutional buyers at reduced rates.
4. Interpretation of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944.
5. Applicability of different MRPs for different regions.
6. Treatment of contract price for institutional buyers.
7. Compliance with Standards of Weights and Measure Rules, 1977.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with multiple appeals against demands of duty and penalties for different periods. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Ceramic Glazed Tiles, was assessed for excise duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The issue arose from the non-mentioning of areas on packages for goods cleared and selling to institutional buyers at reduced rates.

2. The Original Authority held that the non-mentioning of areas on packages contravened Section 4A, leading to incorrect adoption of lower MRPs. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appellant to challenge it.

3. The appellant argued that different MRPs for different regions were legally acceptable, emphasizing that only one price was declared per package. They contended that specifying regions for MRPs was unnecessary as per the Standards of Weights and Measure Rules, 1977. Additionally, they highlighted separate MRPs for institutional buyers, which were lower than general MRPs.

4. The judgment analyzed Section 4A of the Central Excise Act for the relevant periods (2001-2002 and 2003-2004). It clarified that the Act did not mandate specifying areas for lower MRPs. It emphasized that the retail price was the maximum price for sales to ultimate consumers, including institutional buyers who were considered ultimate consumers.

5. The Tribunal found no requirement to declare specific areas for lower MRPs, especially when there was no evidence of selling goods at higher prices than claimed. It upheld the validity of different MRPs for different regions and recognized the distinct nature of sales to institutional buyers, rejecting the notion that the contract price equated to the MRP.

6. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed, providing relief to the appellant based on the interpretation of Section 4A and the Standards of Weights and Measure Rules, 1977. The judgment emphasized the legality of different MRPs for different regions and the distinction between MRP and contract price for institutional buyers.

← Previous Next →