2024 (5) TMI 771 - AT - Central Excise

Method of valuation - Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act - shampoos in packing of more than 10ml as well as less than 10ml - requirement of affixing the MRP on the sachets as per Rule 26 (a) of LMPCR, 2011 - HELD THAT - The Tribunal has considered the issue in the case of SARVOTHAM CARE LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS. C. EX., HYDERABAD 2013 (4) TMI 505 - CESTAT BANGALORE and held that the valuation adopted under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is correct. Further, in the appellant s own case M/S. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE 2020 (2) TMI 182 - CESTAT CHENNAI , the Tribunal followed the above decision to set aside the demand raised under Section 4A and held that the determination of assessable value is to be done under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The demand under Section 4A cannot sustain. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues: Determination of assessable value of shampoos in sachets/pouches under Section 4 or 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944.

The appellant, engaged in shampoo manufacturing, cleared products in pouches without weight indication. Department alleged assessable value of pouches under Section 4A, issuing a Show Cause Notice for duty demand. Adjudicating authority confirmed duty demand and imposed penalty.

The appellant argued that for sachets weighing 10ml or less, assessable value was determined under Section 4, citing SWMPCR, 1977 exemptions. Legal Metrology Act (Packaged Commodity) Rules 2011 exempted commodities under 10 gms or 10ml from MRP affixing.

Tribunal's earlier decision favored valuation under Section 4, not 4A, for similar case. Current issue revolved around determining assessable value under Section 4 or 4A for shampoo sachets/pouches.

The Tribunal analyzed relevant guidelines from Sarvotham Care Ltd. case, emphasizing factors for Section 4A valuation adoption. Manufacturer's intention and marketing pattern were deemed crucial in assessment.

Considering manufacturer's intent, marketing pattern, and exemption under Rule 34(1)(b) of PC Rules, the Tribunal concluded that assessment under Section 4 was appropriate. Previous Tribunal decision supported setting aside demands under Section 4A and determining assessable value under Section 4.

The impugned order was overturned, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential reliefs, if applicable.

(Order pronounced in open court on 30.04.2024)