2022 (1) TMI 200 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - requirement of affixation of MRP on the finished goods - packets are less than 10 gms - applicability of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 4(A) of the Act? - HELD THAT - In appellant s own case CCE, JAMMU VERSUS HYDERABAD CHEMICALS LTD. AND VICE-VERSA 2018 (9) TMI 305 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH , this Tribunal placed reliance in the case of RADHA TOBACCO CO. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE KANPUR 2016 (7) TMI 768 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD where it was held that Considering the fact that the appellant have made packages for retail sale, they are legally bound to affix MRP of the said goods. In the circumstances, the appellant is required to discharge duty in terms of Section 4A of the Act. Therefore, the appellant has correctly discharged the duty liability under section 4A of the Act. The appellant is rightly discharged the duty in terms of Section 4(A) of the Act - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Valuation of goods under Section 4 or Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Entitlement of refund of education cess and higher education cess.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed appeals against the impugned order where the Revenue sought to determine the value under Section 4 instead of Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. The assessee, located in Jammu and Kashmir, avails exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE and manufactures insecticides and pesticides for sale in finished condition. The Revenue argued that duty should be paid under Section 4 as MRP is not required on packets less than 10 gms. Show cause notices were issued for excess refund claimed by the assessee, leading to appeals by the appellant.
3. The appellant's counsel argued that a previous decision by the Tribunal accepted valuation under Section 4(A), thus the impugned orders should be set aside.
4. The Revenue admitted the previous decision but contended that the appellant is not eligible for a refund of education cess and higher education cess.
5. After hearing both parties and examining the record, the Tribunal found the issue to be solely about the valuation of goods under Section 4 or Section 4(A) and not about the refund of education cess. The Tribunal referred to previous cases to support the appellant's valuation under Section 4(A).
6. The Tribunal held that the appellant correctly discharged duty under Section 4(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals while allowing the appellant's appeals with consequential relief, if any.
7. Based on the previous decision and the correct discharge of duty by the appellant under Section 4(A), the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with any consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on legal precedents and interpretations of the Central Excise Act, 1944.