9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 587 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - Compact Fluorescent Lamps - bulk sale - valued as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, or Section 4A? - Held that - the issue is no longer res Integra, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Liberty Shoes Ltd 2015 (12) TMI 1159 - SUPREME COURT and accordingly we hold that there being no dispute that CFL was an item specified under Section 4A of the Act (which is covered under the Packaged Commodities Rules) and further MRP was affixed on the products supplied, as such the same would not exempted under Rule 34 of the Rules, read with the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further we find that the finding of Id. Commissioner (Appeals is based on mistake of fact, the impugned order is fit to be set aside. Further we hold that under the facts and circumstances no case of contumacious conduct or suppression is made out and as such extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue. We allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order with consequential benefits to the appellant - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
Issues:
1. Valuation of goods under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 instead of Section 4A for bulk sales marked with MRP. 2. Interpretation of the Standards of Weight and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 regarding goods intended for retail sale. 3. Application of the ruling in the case of CCE versus Liberty Shoes regarding marking of goods with MRP and duty payment under Section 4A. 4. Allegations of contumacious conduct and suppression leading to the invocation of the extended period of limitation. Issue 1 - Valuation of goods under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act: The appellant, a manufacturer of Compact Fluorescent Lamps (C.F.L.), contested the valuation of goods sold in bulk marked with MRP under Section 4A instead of Section 4. The Revenue argued that since the goods were not sold to ultimate customers in retail but consumed in bulk or utilized for manufacturing, the MRP-based assessment under Section 4A was not applicable. The appellant's plea was based on the contention that the goods were intended for retail sale, falling within the ambit of 'Retail sale' as per the Standards of Weight and Measures Act, 1976. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, stating that the contract price realized by the appellant was not less than the MRP, indicating that MRP was not the sole consideration. Issue 2 - Interpretation of the Standards of Weight and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules: The appellant argued that the goods in question were intended for retail sale as per the Standards of Weight and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, despite not being actually sold in retail. The appellant relied on Rule 34 of the SWM (PC) Rules, which provides exemptions for packages intended for exclusive use by an industry. The appellant cited the ruling in the case of CCE versus Liberty Shoes, where goods marked with MRP sold in bulk to institutional buyers were held to be covered under Section 4A for duty payment. Issue 3 - Application of the ruling in the case of CCE versus Liberty Shoes: The appellant invoked the ruling in the case of CCE versus Liberty Shoes, where shoes marked with MRP sold in bulk were assessed under Section 4A for duty payment. The appellant argued that the goods cleared were marked with MRP and intended for retail sale, irrespective of the buyer's post-purchase actions. The Tribunal found that CFL was specified under Section 4A, and MRP was affixed on the products supplied, not exempted under Rule 34, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order. Issue 4 - Allegations of contumacious conduct and suppression: The appellant denied any suppression or contumacious conduct, arguing against the invocation of the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions, found no case of contumacious conduct or suppression, thus ruling out the availability of the extended period of limitation to the Revenue. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order with consequential benefits to the appellant.
|
