9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 the valuation of the said goods shall be covered by Section 4. It is also fact that the footwear supplier affixing the MRP on each package of each footwear, the respondent supplied to their industrial buyer. We are of the opinion that the footwear, even though the supply in bulk but in absence of exemption provided under Rule 34 of The Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rule, 1977. The valuation of footwear shall be correctly made under Section 4A and not under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Application No. E/CO/149/06-Mum, Appeal No. E/4145/05-Mum - Order No. A/90670-90671/16/EB. - Dated:- 26-9-2016 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 4A. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Bharti Systel Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I [2002 (145) ELT 626 (Tri.-Del.). 4. On the other hand, Shri Sachin S. Kulkarni learned Counsel for the respondent taking support from the impugned order, submits that the Section 4A will apply only in such cases where it is mandatory requirement to affix the MRP on the packages of product. In the present case as per the clarification issued by Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology, Ahmednagar, even in the case where the supply of packaged goods are involved, the respondent is liable to affix the price on packages as per The Standards of Weights Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 Section No. 33 read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court judgment in the case of Liberty Shoes Ltd. (supra) directly applies in the fact of the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 12. Once we find that the footwear is an item which is specified under Section 4A, which is covered by Weights and Measures Act and Rules, and MRP was affixed on the products supplied, which were not exempted under Rule 34 of the Rules, the provision of Section 4A of the Act shall stand attracted. 13. The issue is no more res integra and has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in Jayanti Food Processing (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajasthan [2007 (8) SCC 34 = 2007 (215) E.L.T. 327 (S.C.)] in the following terms :- 32. It is true that if the un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns. We have quoted Rule 34 earlier. The Rule has now been amended. However, under the unamended Rule there is a specific declaration that the SWM (PC) Rules shall not apply to any package containing a commodity if the marking on the package unambiguously indicates that it has been specially packed for the exclusive use of any industry as a raw material or for the purpose of servicing any industry, mine or quarry. Learned counsel points out that the package which is sold by the assessee mentions that it is specially packed for the exclusive use of the catering industry. 35. Learned counsel further argues that such package was for the purposes of servicing the hotel industry or catering industry as the case may be. Learned counsel is und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
