9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the sticker being put on the MRP printed on the cartons when the same were manufactured is not a declaration of two MRP one originally printed on the cartons and the other shown on the sticker and hence the duty demand in terms of Explanation II to Section 4 on the basis of higher of the two MRP would not be sustainable. The Tribunal in this order also held that affixing of sticker showing revised MRP over the printed MRP on the packages is in accordance with Rule 6 of the Standards of Weight and Measures (Package) Rule, 1977 and it fulfils the requirement of the declaration in terms of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. Same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Sukumar Soft Drinks vs. CCE, Bangalore (2006 (6) TMI 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 4A. 1.2 There are three allegations against the appellant. (1) The first allegation is that during the period of dispute from 09/06/98 to 31/08/2000, while some MRP was printed on the packages, the appellant put a second MRP by putting a sticker on the MRP cleared earlier and the MRP on the sticker is much less than the MRP printed on the cartage and the appellant were not allowed to do this and were required to pay the duty only on the basis of the assessable value determined on the basis of the higher of the two MRPs, i.e. the MRP originally printed and the MRP mentioned on the sticker which had been put on the original MRP printed on the cartons. The duty demand of ₹ 11,91,164/- is on this basis. (2) The s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order-in-appeal dated 09/5/06. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri S.K. Pahwa, Advocate, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that so far as duty demand of ₹ 11,91,164/- against the appellant is concerned, this demand is based only on the allegation that the cartons of the gas stoves were having much higher MRP printed on them and instead of determining assessable value on that MRP, the appellant have paid duty on the assessable value determined on the basis of much lower MRP which had been declared on the sticker which had been put on the original MRP, that in terms of Rule 6 of the Standards of Weight and Measures (Package) Rule, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this case, more so, when it is not the case of the Department that the stoves had sold by the appellants dealers on the MRP is much higher than the MRP printed on the sticker, that in view of this, the duty demand of ₹ 1,59,304/- is not sustainable, that as regards duty demand of ₹ 11,91,164/- based on the allegation of clearing bio-gas stoves in the guise of LPG stoves, this duty demand is based on the statements of 4 dealers - Shri Jibu J. Edattakaran, Kerala, G.A. Associate, Bangalore, M/s Shiv Shakti Enterprises, Gujarat and M/s Govind Agencies, Calcutta who in their statements have stated that they deal only in LPG stoves, that on the basis of their statements only, the Department had alleged that the stoves received by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, no inquiry has been conducted with other three dealers M/s Syam Enterprises, PO Kollam, Kerala, M/s Betal Trading Co., Garishpur (Modasa) and M/s Syam Enterprises, Thirumullavaram, Kerala and that in view of this, the duty demand of ₹ 28,531/- is also not sustainable. It was, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not sustainable. 4. Shri M.S. Negi, the learned DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The bulk of the duty demand ₹ 11,91,164/- is on the basis of the allegation that while on the cartons of the LPG stoves cleared by the appellant from MRP was printed, the appellant had put ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1944. Same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Sukumar Soft Drinks vs. CCE, Bangalore (supra). We are of the view that the ratio of these judgments of the Tribunal is squarely applicable in the facts of this case. Therefore, the impugned order confirming duty demand of ₹ 11,91,164/- is not sustainable and the same has to be set aside. 7. As regards the duty demand of ₹ 1,59,304/- on the basis of allegation that the appellant have cleared LPG stoves in the guise of bio-gas stoves without payment of duty to four dealers namely Shri Jibu J. Edattakaran, Kerala, G.A. Associate, Bangalore, M/s Shiv Shakti Enterprises, Gujarat and M/s Govind Agencies, Calcutta, on perusal of these supply orders, it is seen that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
