2020 (9) TMI 5 - AT - Central Excise

Method of Valuation - section 4A or Section 4 of CEA - manufacturer of pesticides and insecticides of less than 10 gms/10 ml - said packages were packed in bigger boxes of 15-20 packs and on the packages the appellant is putting MRP printed and paying duty - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - Issue decided in appellant own case 2018 (5) TMI 1342 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH where it was held that the appellant have made packages for retail sale, they are legally bound to affix MRP of the said goods. In the circumstances, the appellant is required to discharge duty in terms of Section 4A of the Act. Therefore, the appellant has correctly discharged the duty liability under section 4A of the Act. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment under Section 4 vs. Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for packaged goods with Maximum Retail Price (MRP) printed.

Analysis:

The appellant, a manufacturer of pesticides and insecticides in Jammu & Kashmir, packed pouches of less than 10 gms/10 ml in bigger boxes with printed MRP, paying duty under Section 4A after availing abatement. The Revenue alleged excess refund claiming the goods should be assessed under Section 4, leading to a show cause notice and subsequent order confirming demand under section 11A(1) and imposing penalty under section 11AC. The appellant contended that a prior Tribunal decision in their own case supported their position.

Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal referred to the earlier decision in the appellant's case and another case precedent, emphasizing the requirement of affixing MRP on goods intended for retail sale as per the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The Tribunal clarified that the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot mandate MRP printing; it must come from the Weights & Measures Rules. The Rules aim to protect consumers by ensuring clear product information at the retail point, with the obligation to affix MRP only applicable when goods are intended for retail sale. The Tribunal highlighted that the producer's intent to sell in retail is demonstrated by printing prescribed details on the package, emphasizing that the assessment under Section 4A is contingent on packaging and mandated declarations.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned orders, setting them aside and allowing the appeals with any consequential relief. The decision reaffirmed that the appellant, by packaging goods for retail sale, was obligated to affix MRP and discharge duty under Section 4A of the Act, aligning with the legal requirements outlined in the Standards of Weights & Measures Rules, 1977.