2022 (4) TMI 733 - SC - Central Excise

Valuation of Central Excise Duty - argument of the appellant is that the mandate of Section 4A(2) obligates the taxing authority to assess the excise duty only in reference to the market selling price printed on the packing of the product - HELD THAT - The submission of argument clearly overlooks the purport of expression retail sale price occurring in Section 4A. The non-obstante clause in Section 4A(2) will have to be construed in the context of the meaning of the expression retail sale price as elaborated in explanation (1). Taking that into account, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal needs no interference. Hence, the civil appeals are dismissed. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Section 4A(2) of the Customs Act regarding excise duty assessment based on retail sale price printed on product packaging.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court, comprising A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ., heard the arguments presented by both parties. The central issue in question pertained to the interpretation of Section 4A(2) of the Customs Act, as determined by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, based on the specific facts of the case. The appellant contended that Section 4A(2) mandates the taxing authority to assess excise duty solely with reference to the market selling price indicated on the product packaging.

Upon careful consideration, the Court opined that the appellant's argument failed to acknowledge the significance of the term "retail sale price" as mentioned in Section 4A. The Court emphasized that the non-obstante clause in Section 4A(2) must be construed in light of the explanation provided for the term "retail sale price." Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal, leading to the dismissal of the civil appeals brought before it.

Following the pronouncement of the order, the appellant's counsel, Mr. Alok Yadav, made a fervent plea for the waiver of the imposed penalty, citing the appellant's reliance on its interpretation of Section 4A. However, the Court chose not to delve into this submission. Instead, the Court advised the appellant to submit a representation to the appropriate authority seeking the waiver of the penalty, which would be evaluated based on its own merits. Additionally, the Court disposed of any pending applications in relation to the matter at hand.