2017 (10) TMI 208 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Section 4 or 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - The case of the department is that the upplies are for the direct consumption by the institution in case of supplies made to industries and not for retail sale, the same should be valued under Section 4 - Held that - The judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayanti Food Processing (P) Ltd. 2007 (8) TMI 3 - Supreme Court relied upon by the Commissioner squarely covers the issue involved herein, where SC prescribes the ruling for proper valuation in 14 different but identical appeals in a single judgement. The same goods which were supplied in the retail market has been supplied to the customers namely M/s. L&T, M/s. Berger Becker Coatings, M/s. Massline Engineering Constructions, M/s. Stenelac Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Hindalco Industries, M/s. Global Corrosion Company, M/s Poonam Paints Corporation Ltd. etc. Unit of package is also same which bear the MRP. Though the goods were supplied to the aforesaid customers but the respondent supplied the goods which is not distinguished from the goods supplied for retail sale. In such case there is no exemption from affixing the MRP on the package. In such situation, the goods are correctly liable to be valued in terms of Section 4A. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Valuation of excisable finished goods under Section 4A - Abatement claimed - Supplies to industries for direct consumption - Applicability of Section 4 - Differential duty demand - Interpretation of relevant legal provisions - Application of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Jayanti Food Processors Pvt. Ltd. case.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the valuation of excisable finished goods supplied directly to various industries for their direct consumption. The respondent claimed abatement of 40% under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, while the department contended that such supplies should be valued under Section 4 without abatement. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand for differential duty, which was challenged by the respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals), who ruled in favor of the respondent citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Jayanti Food Processors Pvt. Ltd. case.

The Revenue argued that the goods supplied directly to industries for their captive consumption should be valued under Section 4, as clarified by Circular No.625/16/2002-cX. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel relied on the Jayanti Food Processors Pvt. Ltd. case, asserting that the goods supplied to industries were not distinguishable from those meant for retail sale, hence should be valued under Section 4A with abatement.

The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions and noted that the goods supplied to industrial buyers were in the same retail packaging as those sold in the market, bearing MRP. Referring to various judgments, including Liberty Shoes Ltd., H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., Nitco Tiles, Mexim Adhesive Tapes Pvt. Ltd., and others, the Tribunal found that the issue had been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Jayanti Food Processors Pvt. Ltd. case. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, stating that the facts of the case aligned with previous judgments, and there was no basis to interfere with the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the settled legal principles and precedents established in similar cases. The judgment was pronounced on 28/09/2017 by the Tribunal comprising Shri Ramesh Nair and Shri Raju.