Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (4) TMI 624

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the records of the case, it is absolutely clear that the appellants are importing the impugned goods not for retail sale but for repacking, labelling and branding and selling the same in bulk to M/s. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. Therefore, they are not required to declare MRP in terms of Rule 3 of the said Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 as they are industrial consumers. - Demand of differential duty is not justified - Decided in favor of assessee. - C/210 and C/388/2012 - A/545-546/2012-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 12-6-2012 - S/Shri Ashok Jindal, P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri T. Vishwanathan, Advocate, for the Assessee. Shri Navneet, Addl. Commissioner (AR), for the Department. [Order per : P.R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... China in bulk. After importation they unpack the imported material and print Bajaj Logo on the torches and insert and staple the card indicating details such as model, power supply, charging time, etc., and affix the label indicating MRP and repack the torches as they have entered into a blanket purchase agreement with M/s. Bajaj Electrical Ltd., and these goods are sold by Bajaj Electrical Ltd., at RSPs ranging from Rs. 135/- to Rs. 375/- per piece. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued for revising the assessable value of the impugned goods by taking the RSP from Rs. 135/- to Rs. 375/- as indicated above and demanding Additional Customs Duty thereon on the basis of the revised value. The show-cause notice also proposed to confisc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... anufacture and they are discharging Central Excise duty liability on the RSPs declared by M/s. Bajaj Electrical Ltd. Therefore, they are not required to discharge additional duty of Customs (CVD) on the basis of MRP. 4. The ld. Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions : 4.1 The appellant is registered with the Central Excise department and they are discharging excise duty liability on the imported goods after subjecting them to the process of re-packing, labelling and affixing MRP. These activities are undertaken on behalf of the M/s. Bajaj Electrical Ltd., who purchase the commodities in bulk. Since the goods imported are used in further manufacture and not intended for retail sale they are not required to discharge CVD .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ey were not aware at the time of import on what price the goods would be ultimately sold to the consumer by M/s. Bajaj Electrical Ltd. with whom they had understanding for repacking/labelling, etc., and who purchased the goods from them in wholesale. In view of the above, he submits that the entire demand for differential duty is ill-conceived and liable to be set aside. 5. The ld. AR appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, reiterates the findings of the lower authority and pleads for upholding the orders of the lower authority. With regard to the appeal filed by the Revenue against the reduction of penalty by lower appellate authority, he submits that in the circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed cannot be said to be harsh. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ogy (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 as they are industrial consumers. This position has been further clarified by DGFT vide notification dated 22-1-2001 wherein it has been clearly stated that import of raw materials, components, bulk imports, etc. would invariably undergo further processing or removal before they are sold to consumer and in respect of these imports, the labelling requirements prescribed under Notification No. 44(RE-2000)97-2002 dated 24-11-2000 shall not apply. It is also not in dispute that the goods are specified in Third Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the activities undertaken by the appellant importer amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the said Act. In these circumstances, it is clear that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates