9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) Shri Sameer Chitkara, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri H.D. Dave, Adv,, for the Respondent. [Order per: Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - Both the appeals-one by Revenue and other by the assessee-though arising out of different orders of Commissioner (Appeals), are being disposed off by a common order as the issue involved in both the appeals is identical. 2. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of goods which are covered under Section 4A of CEA, 1944 for valuation purposes. Different MRPs for different buyers was being affixed on the goods and as such Revenue entertained a view that the highest MRP fixed on the like goods is to be adopted for the purposes of duty payment. Accordingly, procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e shall be deemed to be the retail sale price declared on such goods (less amount of abatement). If sub-section (2) of Sec. 4A is read with sub-section (1), there will be no doubt as to what is the basis far charging excise duty, as it refers to the retail sale price declared on such goods (Packages) less abatement. The purpose of explanation is to explain the meaning of word contained in the section. Explanation 2(a) refers to a situation where more than one retail sale price is declared on the package. Explanation 2(b) provides that where only one retail sale price is printed on the packages meant for sale in a region, then that price alone would be the retail sale price for the purposes of calculating the excise duty in respect of the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different MRPs are affixed keeping in view the market condition, different MRP so fixed would be the retail sale price in respect of that packet. Explanation 2 of Section 4A is to the effect that where more than one retail price is declared on the packet, the maximum of such retail price shall be deemed to be retail sale price for the purposes of this Section. It is not the Revenue's case that more than one MRP is affixed on the same packet. As such, we find no infirmity in the view adopted by Commissioner (Appeals). 7. We also note that the Tribunal in case of M/s. Amtrex Hitachi Appliances Ltd. vide order Nos. A/1417-1419/ WZB/ AHD/2008, dated 23-7-2008, has held that fixation of different MRP on different packages, depending upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
