9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stitutional consumers. A sale would be considered as a sale to institutional consumer or industrial consumer if the packaged commodities are directly purchased from the manufacturer. In the present case admittedly the goods were not being directly purchased by the industrial consumers from the present manufacturer appellant. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellants were maintaining all the records required to be maintained in the ordinary course of their business and in fact it is audit of those records only which led the Revenue to find out that the duty was being paid under Section 4A. In such a scenario no mala fide can be attributed to the appellant so as to invoke the extended period - Extended period cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore than 25kg/25ltr which was meant for industrial consumers and institutional consumers. As the goods in question were for industrial consumers, the Revenue was of the view that in terms of provisions of Rule 2A (b) of Chapter 2 of the Standard of Weight Measure (PC) Rules, 1977 and subsequently in terms of Section 3 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011, the goods meant for an Industrial/Institutional consumers are excluded from the provisions of Standard of Weight Measures (PC) Rules, 1977 and require no fixation of MRP, in which case provisions of Section 4A, would not get attracted. 3. In view of the above, enquires were made from the appellant and thereafter a show cause notice was issued on 25 Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Authority, who confirmed demand along with imposition of penalty. On appeal the order of the Original Adjudicating Authority was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present appeal. 5. After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides and after going through the impugned order, we find that the dispute revolves around the applicability or non-applicability of provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act which provides for discharge of duty on the basis of the MRP. Admittedly the appellant s final products were carrying the MRP on the same. The goods were being sold through distributive channels and by displaying the same in retail outlets. The explanation to Section 3 of the Legal Metrology (Package ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present case. 7. Otherwise also we find that the demand stands raised on 25 June, 2015 for the period 2010-11 and 2013-14 i.e. by invoking the longer period of limitation. Admittedly, the fact that the appellant was discharging its duty liability under Section 4A was in the notice of the Revenue inasmuch as the appellant was filing due returns. Not only that, the audits have earlier taken place in the assessee s factory in the year 2008 as also in 2010 and no objection was raised by the audit team thus letting support to the appellant s belief that their product attract Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The appellants were maintaining all the records required to be maintained in the ordinary course of their business an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
