2013 (11) TMI 1185 - AT - Central Excise

Method for computing the value of the goods - MRP Based duty u/s 4A or Transaction value u/s 4 of Central Excise Act 1944 Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - Following M/s. Mexim Adhesive Tapes Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Daman 2013 (6) TMI 238 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - The MRP is required to be printed and assessable value has to be determined u/s 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 the appellant has made out a case that goods are required to be assessed and value has to be determined as per the provisions of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 keeping the MRP as the basis - the department cannot insist that in the case of supply to certain categories, MRP based assessment cannot be followed even if MRP was affixed on the packages - there shall be waiver of pre-deposit during pendency of the appeal stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Duty demand based on MRP assessment for ceramic tiles
- Applicability of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 for duty payment
- Confirmation of duty demand and penalty imposition
- Stay application based on precedent decisions of the Tribunal
- Waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery of dues during appeal

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore dealt with the issue of duty demand on ceramic tiles based on MRP assessment. The appellants, engaged in ceramic tile manufacturing, were charged duty as they had used MRP based assessment for payment instead of the transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This discrepancy led to a demand of Rs. 27,89,261 along with a penalty under Section 11AC of the Act.

The learned counsel for the appellants argued that previous Tribunal decisions supported their case, stating that once a product is notified under the Legal Metrology Act and by the Central Government for assessment under Section 4A, MRP based assessment should be accepted even for sales to industrial/institutional consumers. Reference was made to the case of M/s. Mexim Adhesive Tapes Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Daman to strengthen their argument.

The Additional Commissioner (AR) representing the department acknowledged the applicability of the precedent decision cited by the appellants. While expressing a desire to distinguish the case, the AR raised no objections due to the clear coverage of the issue by the previous Tribunal ruling.

Given the direct alignment of the present case with the precedent decision of the Tribunal, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants. Consequently, a waiver of pre-deposit was granted, and a stay against the recovery of dues was ordered during the pendency of the appeal. This decision underscores the significance of established legal precedents in shaping outcomes in similar cases before the Tribunal.