9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a total penalty of Rs. 7,10,000/- imposed on them. The impugned order deals with valuation of the clearances of footwear made by PEL during June 98 to March 02, adopting MRP based assessment in terms of Section 4 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act). 2. PEL manufactures and clears footwear mostly on assessment in terms of Section 4 of the Act. These are cleared in bulk for use by personnel employed in particular industry. The appellants also manufacture footwear for export. Surplus production of such footwear/seconds are cleared in the domestic market. These are sold at the factory gate of the assessee or at the exhibitions organized by it. The footwears carry its retail price printed on the insole. There is also a sticker carr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther instrumentalities between customers and the manufacturers was no valid ground to deny the MRP based assessment. (iii) There was no allegation that the price realized was in excess of the MRP marked. (iv) It was not essential that the assessee incurred various elements of cost/expenditure in order to follow Section 4A assessment. (v) By marking MRP on the footwear itself and not on the package they had not failed to fulfill any of the requirements under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (SWM-PC Rules). Selling shoes in a plain carton was not a relevant criterion. 5. It was submitted that footwear was notified under Notification No. 20/99-C.E., dated 28-2-99 and in 7/2000-C.E., dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment followed was in accordance with law, the ld. Counsel for the appellants relied on the following case law : (i) Jayanti Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 327 (S.C.) (ii) Mona Electronics v. CCE, Patna - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 1293 (Tri. - Kolkata) (iii) Bata India Ltd. v. CCE, Patna - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 78 (Tribunal) 6.2 We have also heard the ld JDR who reiterates the findings in the impugned order. 7. We have carefully studied the case records and the submissions by both sides. The scope and applicability of Section 4A in the context of valuation of excisable goods in terms of Section 4A were analyzed by the Apex Court in Jayanti Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2007 (215) E.L.T. 327 (S.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the characteristics identified by the Apex Court in the Jayanti Food Processing case (Supra) to be covered by the provisions of Section 4 A of the Act. The goods were packed in retail package as defined in Rule 2(p) of SWM-PC Rules . The sale is at the retail price marked on the product. The goods were sold by the manufacturer in retail directly to the consumer. Rule 23(2) of SWM - PC Rules prescribes that no retail dealer or other person including a manufacturer shall sell packaged commodity at a price above the retail price. This provision also shows that excisable goods attracting MRP based assessments can be sold by the manufacturer directly to the customer. We do not think that marking the retail price on the product itself instead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
