9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paying duty under Section 4A of the Act was appropriate or they were required to discharge duty liability in terms of section 4 of Central Excise Act - Held that:- MRP was adopted by M/s. Dixon Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd for further sale of the Televisions to M/s. Elecot. As such, it is not a case where the MRP was subsequently enhanced in the hands of buyers - even if where the sale is through r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e which he has confirm, demands against M/s. Prisma Electronics and has imposed penalties on the other appellants. 2. After hearing both sides, we note that M/s. Prisma Electronics is engaged in the manufacture of colour Television sets. The same were being cleared by them to M/s. Dixon Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. by paying duty on the maximum retail price of Rs.2,740 per piece in terms of Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is the provisions of section 4 which would get attracted. Accordingly, demand stand raised and confirmed on the basis of section 4 of the Central Excise Act. 4. After hearing both sides, we find that there is no dispute about the MRP affixed on the colour TV sets which is Rs.2740.40 per piece. The said MRP was adopted by M/s. Dixon Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd for further sale of the Television ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Larger Bench observed that even it where the sale is through related person and the goods are specified goods in terms of 4A it is section 4A which would be attracted for the purpose of assessment. 6. In view of the above declaration of law by the Larger Bench and in view of the fact that this is sole reason adopted by the Commissioner for denial of section 4A assessment, we set aside the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
