9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied in the retail market has been supplied to the customers namely M/s. L&T, M/s. Berger Becker Coatings, M/s. Massline Engineering Constructions, M/s. Stenelac Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Hindalco Industries, M/s. Global Corrosion Company, M/s Poonam Paints Corporation Ltd. etc. Unit of package is also same which bear the MRP. Though the goods were supplied to the aforesaid customers but the respondent supplied the goods which is not distinguished from the goods supplied for retail sale. In such case there is no exemption from affixing the MRP on the package. In such situation, the goods are correctly liable to be valued in terms of Section 4A. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/1477/07 - A/89756/17/EB - Dated:- 28-9-2017 - Shri Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is no dispute that the finished excisable goods i.e. paints supplied by the respondent directly to various industries in their own use such goods were not sold in the retail market such, supplies were made under contract, therefore valuation of such nature of supply is not covered under Section 4A, accordingly the respondent is not entitled for the abatement. As a result, they are liable to pay the duty on the transaction value under Section 4. He submits that Board has clarified this issue vide Circular No.625/16/2002-cX dt. 28.2.2002 that supplied made to industries for their captive consumption should be valued under Section 4. 3. Shri Gajendra Jain, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that this issue has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 296 (Tri.-Mumbai) (iv) Mexim Adhesive Tapes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Daman - 2013 (291) ELT 195 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (v) Jayanti Food Processing (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Rajasthan - 2007 (215) ELT 327 (S.C.) (vi) Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Nagpur - 2005 (179) E.L.T. 214 (Tri.-Mumbai) (vii) Itel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Calicut - 2004 (163) ELT 219 (Tri.-Bang.) (viii) Daenyx International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Noida - 2008 (229) ELT 682 (Tri.-Del.) 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the fact is not under dispute that the goods supplied to the industrial buyer namely M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 (S.C.). In the case of Nitco Tiles (supra) similar facts are involved wherein tiles in standard retail packages affixed with MRP were sold to institutional/industrial consumer. It was held that duty was correctly discharged under Section 4A of the Act. In the case of Mexim Adhesive Tapes Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Tribunal has held that self adhesive tapes cleared to industrial users and traders, packages having printed for industrial use and not to be sold loose. It is a case of retail sale under Rule 2 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 Rule. Valuation had to be determined on basis of MRP under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. It can be observed that in this case even though the word fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
