2000 (5) TMI 108 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Explanation II under Section 4A regarding multiple retail sale prices on excisable goods.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The case involved a dispute regarding the application of Explanation II under Section 4A to determine the retail sale price for excisable goods. The appellant had two different maximum retail prices (MRPs) for their detergent powder products packed in two different packagings during a specific period.

2. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue contended that as per Section 4A, the higher of the declared MRPs should be considered for levying duty. They argued that the provision overrides Section 4 of the Act and that the different MRPs on similar goods were not permissible. The Revenue emphasized that the content being the same, there should not be different MRPs for the same excisable goods, irrespective of the buyer class.

3. Respondent's Argument: The respondent argued that the MRPs were displayed on separate packaging for different classes of buyers, such as the general public and Canteen Supply Department (CSD). They highlighted examples of other products showing different prices on the same packaging for various regions or states. The respondent asserted that Section 4A did not negate the possibility of different prices for different buyer classes.

4. Interpretation of Explanation II: The Tribunal analyzed Explanation II under Section 4A, which states that the maximum of multiple declared retail sale prices shall be deemed as the retail sale price. The Tribunal interpreted that the declaration of prices on the packaging was crucial, as per the Standards of Weights and Measures Act. Therefore, if multiple retail prices were declared on the packaging, the higher price would be considered for duty levy.

5. Decision: The Tribunal upheld the order in favor of the respondent, stating that the correct interpretation of Explanation II required considering the prices declared on the packaging. As the packaging contained different MRPs for distinct buyer classes, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal. The judgment emphasized that the determination of MRP for duty levy should align with the prices declared on the packaging, supporting the respondent's position regarding different MRPs for different buyer classes.