2003 (10) TMI 82 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.
2. Interpretation of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act regarding multiple retail prices on excisable goods.
3. Compliance with CBEC Circulars regarding retail sale price on multi-piece packages.
4. Applicability and retrospective effect of clarificatory circulars.
5. Decision on remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) without insisting on pre-deposit.

Analysis:
1. The appellants sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 36,27,973/- and Rs. 7,20,000/- respectively. The Tribunal decided to hear and dispose of the appeal itself after waiving the pre-deposit with the consent of both sides, as it was possible to decide the appeal directly.

2. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act concerning the declaration of multiple retail prices on excisable goods. The department contended that the correct price of the goods should be Rs. 56/- based on the MRP of Rs. 14/- per tablet printed on individual wrappers along with the MRP of Rs. 42/- for a pack of four tablets. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,20,000/-.

3. The Tribunal considered the CBEC Circulars on the subject, particularly Circular No. 639/30/2002-CX and a subsequent circular dated 28-10-2002. The latter circular clarified that the price declared on a multi-piece package is the MRP under Section 4A, provided certain conditions are met. The appellants argued that the individual soap pieces in the multi-piece pack cannot be detached without tearing the wrapper, thus supporting their compliance with the circular.

4. Regarding the applicability and retrospective effect of clarificatory circulars, the Tribunal acknowledged the force in the appellants' argument that the October 2002 circular should apply retrospectively to cover the period in dispute. However, since the lower appellate authority had not considered the effect of this circular, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remand, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass fresh orders after hearing the appellants without insisting on pre-deposit, considering the clarifications provided in the circulars and the specific circumstances of the case.