Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (7) TMI 475

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pplicable. When goods are sold outside the country, such as Nepal, MRP based valuation is not applicable and the value to be adopted is the transaction value as provided under Section 4 of the Act. This view has been expressed by the Tribunal, New Delhi in the case of GILLETTE INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR [ 2005 (8) TMI 222 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] wherein it was observed that export consignments to Nepal were required to be valued in terms of their transaction value under Section 4 and not in terms of Section 4A, even if the goods under export were specified under Section 4A(1) of the Act. It is observed that the appellant has fairly accepted the valuation in terms of Section 4 of the Act for the goods cleared to Ne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bose Road, Bamboo Villa, 4th Floor, Kolkata 700 014. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of medicaments falling under Chapter Headings 3003 and 3004 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period from January 2005 to June 2008, the appellant had removed from their factory packaged medicines covered by the Standards of Weights and Measures Act [hereinafter referred to as the SWM Act ] on stock transfer basis to their Patna depot, on payment of duty by adopting MRP based valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Subsequently, on getting orders from Nepal buyers, such medicines were sold to them for export from their Patna depot at wholesale prices. With normal trade discou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s in question under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, they submitted that they have already deposited the duty confirmed along with interest before filing this appeal. The appellant mainly contests the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act,1944. 6. The appellant submits that they do not receive or solicit any orders from Nepal buyers at their factory; at the time of clearance of the goods from their depot, they were not aware that the said goods would be cleared from their depot later to the buyers located in Nepal; accordingly, they have cleared the goods on payment of duty to their depot by adopting the MRP as provided under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. Thus, they submit that they had .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... plicable. When goods are sold outside the country, such as Nepal, MRP based valuation is not applicable and the value to be adopted is the transaction value as provided under Section 4 of the Act. This view has been expressed by the Tribunal, New Delhi in the case of Gillette India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2006 (193) E.L.T. 331 (Tri. Del.)] wherein it was observed that export consignments to Nepal were required to be valued in terms of their transaction value under Section 4 and not in terms of Section 4A, even if the goods under export were specified under Section 4A(1) of the Act. 9.2. We observe that the appellant has fairly accepted the valuation in terms of Section 4 of the Act for the goods cleared to Nepal from .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e cleared the goods from their depot by adopting the MRP based valuation. When the Department contended that MRP based valuation is not applicable for the goods cleared to Nepal, the appellant accepted their liability and paid the differential amount of duty. Even though it was paid after issuance of the adjudication order, we observe that in this case, there is no mens rea or intention to evade payment of duty existing on the part of the appellant. As suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty is not established in this case, we hold that the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not sustainable and accordingly, we set aside the same. 11. In view of the above, we pass the following order : - ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates