9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e value of these goods were required to be fixed after reducing the permissible abatement from their MRP with effect from 2-6-98 in view of Notification No. 18/98-C.E. (N.T.), dated 2-6-98 issued under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The impugned order has demanded a duty of over Rs. 41 lakhs in respect of these appliances removed by the appellant during the period 2-6-98 to 27-11-98. Apart from the duty, penalty of an amount equal to the duty has also been imposed on the appellant, in addition to demand of interest in respect of the amount demanded as duty. The ground for making the duty demand is that on the domestic appliances sold by them, the appellant did not pay duty on the basis of the correct MRP, but on the lower amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MRPs were also available in the appellant's factory. However, goods under removal from the appellant s factory and most of the goods in the distribution chain were found to be packed in cartons on which stickers declaring the raised lower MRPs had been affixed. The Commissioner who adjudicated the case rejected the appellant s explanation that they had declared correct retail sale prices on the packages through the printed stickers, that those prices were the relevant MRPs and that duty had been correctly paid after taking the amount of abatement permitted under the notification from the declared MRP. 3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the finding regarding incorrect payment of duty has been reached based on a particular legal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as the appellants had, in any case, failed to securely affix labels of price declaration on the cartons. 4. As against the above, learned Sr. Counsel representing the appellant took us through the relevant provisions under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Weights Measures Rules and submitted that the findings in the impugned order had no legal or factual basis. Section 4A(ii) provides that where goods are to be valued under Section 4A(i), such value shall be deemed to be the retail sale price declared on such goods ..... . Thus, the valuation is to be done based on the price declared. Rule 6 of the Standards of Weights Measures (Packages Commodities) Rules, 1977 relating to the method of declaration of sale price st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted on the cartons were the MRPs prevalent at the time of manufacture of the cartons. Subsequently, the MRPs were revised and the revised MRPs were printed on stickers and those stickers were affixed over the printed MRPs on the cartons. The MRPs indicated on the stickers were in supersession of the MRPs originally printed. In such a situation, there was no basis to reach a finding that two MRPs had been declared on the cartons, the originally printed MRPs and the revised MRPs shown on the stickers. Therefore, the Commissioner s finding that the duty demand would be justified in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 4A of the Central Excise Act also is not borne out by the facts of the case. 6. Apart from the legal provisions mentioned above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
