Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 91 - CESTAT MUMBAIExemption from levy of CVD on MRP basis - Rule 26 of the Legal Metrology (packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011 - Revenue denied exemption the basis that products imported by the appellant namely, Fevistick/Gluestick etc. are sold not on weight basis but on number basis and, therefore, the provisions of rule 26 of Rules, 2011 would not apply - Held that:- As per the declarations made, net weight is declared as 5g or 8g as the case may be for the adhesives contained in the packages. The commercial invoices and the packing list in respect of the said import also bears the declaration - Fevistick - 5g/Fevistick - 8g as the case may be, which is also the description declared in the Bills of Entry. The goods are in semi-solid form and, therefore, in terms of Section 5 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with rule 12 of the Legal Metrology Rules, 2011, the description of the quantity has to be made in terms of unit of mass, which the appellant has done in the instant case. There is also no dispute of the fact that the item imported is a pre-packaged commodity as defined under Section 2(l) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. If that be so, under rule 26 of the Legal Metrology Rules, 2011, there is no requirement of declaring the RSP on the package of the commodity. In other words, there is no statutory requirement of declaring the RSP of the product in respect of the product under importation. If that be so, the assessment of CVD under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 has to be done on the basis of the transaction value and not on the basis of RSP as claimed by the department. The glues are pre-packaged and are sold by weight which is clearly indicated on the packages. Since the net weight is less than 10g, the appellant is exempted from declaring the RSP on the packages under Rule 26 of the Legal Metrology Rules, 2011. Since the appellant is statutorily exempted from declaring the RSP on the packages, the assessment of CVD has to be done on the basis of transaction price and not on the basis of RSP - Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Anabond Ltd. [2008 (7) TMI 728 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], Bharat Cosmetics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane [2007 (2) TMI 372 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] and Sarvotham Care Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad [2013 (4) TMI 505 - CESTAT BANGALORE] - Decided in favour of assessee.
|