9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal buyers should also be valued in terms of section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 issued SCN demanding duty. Notices also sought to impose penalties on three persons namely, Parvej K Kumana, Dilip A Pandit and Jayesh K Vasavada. The demands were confirmed by lower authorities and penalties against the aforesaid persons were also imposed. Aggrieved by the confirmation of demand, interest and imposition of penalties M/s USV and three persons namely Parvej K Kumana, Dilip A Pandit and Jayesh K Vasavada have filed appeals. Revenue has also filed an appeal against extension of the benefit of 25% penalty in terms of Section11AC on the ground that the penalties was imposed under rule 25(1) of Central Excise Rules 2002,and not under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Ld. Counsel for M/s USV Ltd. pointed out that they are manufacturers of Pharmacy products and sell their products through distributors for retail sale as well as sale to institutional buyers. He pointed out that sales through distributors which are intended for ultimate retail sale and on such product the MRP is printed were assessed in terms of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. He pointed out that in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also argued that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in these circumstances as the dispute is of matter of interpretation and no malafide can be attached to the appellant. 3. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. He pointed out that the goods were supplied through dealers/ distributors and not directly to the institutional buyers. He argued that there is no evidence that the goods were exclusively meant for free distribution. He argued that even if the goods were sold to distributor, and thereafter from distributor to the institutional buyers, the provisions of DPCO 1995 are attracted in respect of initial sales made to dealer. Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jayanti Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (215) ELT 327 (SC). He pointed out that in terms of the said decision the nature of sale is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the need of printing MRP on the goods cleared. Ld. AR further pointed out that the impugned order has wrongly extended the benefit of the first proviso to Section 11AC in respect of penalty imposed under Rule 25(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. He argued that the benefit of the said proviso cannot be extended to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y such manufacturer or importer. 2. Every manufacturer, importer or distributor of a formulation intended for sale shall display in indelible print mark, on the label of container of the formulation and the minimum pack thereof offered for retail sale, the retail price of that formulation, notified in the Official Gazette or ordered by the Government in this behalf, with the words 'retail price not to exceed' preceding it, and "local taxes extra" succeeding it, in the case of Scheduled formulations. Provided that in the case of a container consisting of smaller saleable packs, the retail price of such smaller pack shall also be displayed on the label of each smaller pack and such price shall not be more than the prorata retail price of the main pack rounded off to the nearest paisa. 15. Display of prices of non-Scheduled formulations and price list thereof : 1. Every manufacturer, importer or distributor of a non-Scheduled formulation intended for sale shall display in indelible print mark, on the label of container of the formulation and the minimum pack thereof offered for retail sale, the retail price of that formulation with the words "retail price not to exceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een made in the para no. 15 (1) of the said order in respect of non-scheduled formulations, the only difference being that the words 'retail price not to exceed' preceding it, and 'local taxes extra' succeeding it, have been replaced by the words 'maximum retail price' preceding it and the words 'inclusive of all taxes' succeeding it. 4.3.4.1 After the detailed analysis of the said para no.s 14(2) and 15(1) of the said DPCO, 1995, the following facts are extracted there-from; 4.3.4.1.1. Who is required to adopt it? : Every manufacturer or importer or distributor of a scheduled or non-scheduled formulation. 4.3.4.1.2. When are the said formulations intended for sale? 4.3.4.1.3 What action is required to be taken? : shall display in indelible print mark; 4.3.4.1.4. On which shall such action be taken? : (i) On the label of a container of the formulation & (ii) On the minimum pack thereof offered for retail sale. 4.3.4.1.5. What will be displayed thereon? : (i) 'retail price not to exceed' & local taxes extra applicable for scheduled formations & (ii) 'maximum retail price' (MRP) inclusive of all taxes in respect of non-scheduled formulations. 4.3.4.2. As discussed at pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
