9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 320 - HC - Central ExciseValuation - pan masala or pan masala with tobacoo pouches - Levy of duty under Section 3A - Notification No. 30/2008-CE (N.T.), dated 1.7.2008 - Held that - Even if the machine manufactures in a particular month pan masala or pan masala with tobacoo pouches of 50.0 and ₹ 1.00, its deemed production would still be 37,44,000 pouches on which duty would be leviable. The proviso to Rule 8 would not be applicable nor can there be a supposition that there would be deemed to be an addition in the number of operating packing machines for the month in question on the strength that a new retail sale price has come into existence on an existing manufacturing machine. - for the purpose of Rule 5, pouches within a particular RSP slab would be the same for the purpose of determining the deemed production per month. When a RSP which is under a different slab, only then it would be treated to be a new retail sale price. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessee had ever manufactured pan masala with tobacoo in pouches above ₹ 1.00, and, therefore, maximum deemed production as specified in Column-3 to the Table in Rule 5 could not exceed the figure indicated thereunder. - No substantial question of law arises for consideration - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Levying of Central Excise duty on excisable goods based on annual capacity of production in the factory under Section 3A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Interpretation of the Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2008 (PMPM Rules) regarding the deemed production per operating machines per month for different retail sale price slabs. Application of Rule 8 and its provisos in cases of manufacturing goods with a new retail sale price on existing machines. Definition and interpretation of "new retail sale price" as per Rule 5 and Rule 2(f) of the Rules. Analysis: The judgment by the Allahabad High Court dealt with the interpretation and application of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2008. The Court emphasized that Central Excise duty is chargeable on excisable goods based on the annual capacity of production in the factory under Section 3A(1) of the Act. The PMPM Rules framed under the Act specified the deemed production per operating machines per month for different retail sale price slabs, with specific reference to the number of pouches produced per machine based on retail sale price slabs. Regarding the application of Rule 8 and its provisos, the Court analyzed a case where the Department levied duty based on the first proviso to Rule 8, considering the manufacturing of goods with a new retail sale price on existing machines as an addition in the number of operating packing machines for the month. The Court examined the definition of "new retail sale price" as per Rule 5 and Rule 2(f) of the Rules, emphasizing that the retail sale price specified by the Central Government determines the duty leviable on the production of goods. The Court clarified that the expression "new retail sale price" must be understood as per Rule 5, which specifies the deemed production per operating machine per month for different retail sale price slabs. It highlighted that the deemed production remains the same even if goods with different retail sale prices are manufactured on the same machine, and the proviso to Rule 8 does not apply in such cases. The judgment concluded that no error was found in the impugned order, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. In summary, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and rules governing the levying of Central Excise duty on excisable goods, specifically focusing on the determination of retail sale prices and deemed production per operating machines per month under the PMPM Rules. The Court's interpretation of the rules and their application in the case highlighted the importance of adhering to the specified procedures and definitions to determine the duty leviable on manufactured goods.
|
