1999 (2) TMI 351 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of value of excisable goods under Section 4 and Section 4A.
2. Interpretation of notifications under Section 4A for specified goods.
3. Admissibility of waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty and penalty.

Issue 1: Determination of value of excisable goods under Section 4 and Section 4A

The case involved a dispute regarding the determination of the value of excisable goods under Section 4 and Section 4A of the relevant law. Section 4 provided guidelines for determining the value of goods liable to duty based on value, while Section 4A introduced an alternative method for valuation based on the retail sale price for specified goods. The Central Government issued notifications specifying footwear falling under Tariff Heading 64.01 to be valued under Section 4A, with an abatement of 50% from the retail price. The question arose whether the value under Tariff sub-heading 6401.12 should be determined under Section 4 or Section 4A.

Issue 2: Interpretation of notifications under Section 4A for specified goods

The dispute centered around the interpretation of notifications issued under Section 4A for specified goods. The Revenue argued that the value should be determined under Section 4, treating the notifications under Section 4A as mere exemption notifications. However, the advocate for the appellants contended that Section 4A provided an alternative method of valuation for specified goods, overriding the provisions of Section 4. The advocate argued that the notifications were not exemption notifications and that the Revenue's interpretation was flawed. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 4A and concluded that the value had to be determined under Section 4A for the specified goods falling under Tariff Heading 64.01.

Issue 3: Admissibility of waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty and penalty

The appellants sought a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 43,32,453.58 demanded. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides, found that the footwear falling under Tariff Heading 64.01 had been specified for valuation under Section 4A, with a fixed abatement from the retail price. The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 4A would override those of Section 4 for determining the value, and as the maximum retail price after abatements was not less than Rs. 75, the appellants had a strong prima facie case. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the stay petition unconditionally, granting the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty and penalty.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA provides insights into the issues surrounding the determination of value of excisable goods under Section 4 and Section 4A, the interpretation of notifications for specified goods, and the admissibility of the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty and penalty.