9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Shri Sanjiv Dahia, Co. Representatives, for the Appellant. Shri S.R. Meena, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President]. Heard Shri Sanjiv Dahia, Co. Rep. for the appellants and Shri S.R. Meena, DR for the respondent. This appeal arises from order dated 28th November 2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Kanpur. By the impugned order, appeal filed by the appellants against the order of the Adjudicating Authority has been dismissed. The Joint Commissioner, Kanpur by his order dated 31st August 2001 had confirmed the demand of Rs. 47,395/- along with equal amount of penalty against the appellants. 2. The issue involved in the matter is whether the appellants ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- in relation to the same product, whereas in a said region for the relevant period it was declared as Rs. 4/- per bottle. Taking into consideration, the MRP in other parts of the country being at Rs. 6/- per bottle, a show cause notice came to be issued requiring the appellants to show cause against the demand for difference in duty paid by them to the tune of Rs. 47,395/-. Though the claim was disputed for the reasons stated above, the demand in respect thereof was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority as stated above and the appeal against the same did not yield fruitful result to the appellants. Hence the present appeal. 4. The Hon ble Karnataka High Court in H R Johnson (India) Ltd. case while dealing with the similar case in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kages meant for sale in a region, then, that price alone would be the retail sale price for purposes of calculating the excise duty in respect of the goods cleared for that region and not some other higher retail sale price that is printed on the packages which are meant for sale in some other region. On the other hand, if more than one retail price is printed/ declared on the same package, then the highest of the several retail sale prices printed/declared on the packages, shall be the retail sale price for purposes of Sec. 4A. 14. We find support for this view from the new Explanation 2 to Section 4A which was substituted with effect from 12-5-2001 by Section 95 of Finance Act, 2000. New Explanation 2 reads thus : Explanation 2. Wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly to the explanation. 15. It is no doubt true that the format of declaration prescribed under Rule 173C(2A) requires the manufacturer to declare as the retail sale price only the highest of several sale prices that are applicable to different regions/States. But the contention of the Department that Explanation 2 to Section 4A refers to the retail sale price declared in the form of declaration prescribed under Rule 173C(2A) cannot be accepted. The form of declaration prescribed under Rule 173C(2A) does not determine the liability. The form cannot be so worded as to put a different meaning on Section 4A(2) or Explanation 2 to Section 4A. Further, if the form of declaration prescribed requires declaration of only one price, the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
