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

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (12) TMI 160 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
Liability of appellant to discharge duty under Section 4 or Section 4A.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, regarding the liability of the appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Tem Adhesive 'C', to discharge duty under Section 4 or Section 4A. The appellant claimed coverage under Section 4A, citing the products being notified under the Standard of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. However, the Revenue contended that duty should be discharged under Section 4, as the product was deemed for industrial/institutional buyers. This led to proceedings resulting in a demand for differential duty and penalty.

The appellant argued that they never directly sold the goods to industrial/institutional consumers but through dealers, hence Rule 2 A of the P.C. Rules, 1977 should not apply, supporting their valuation under Section 4A. On the contrary, the Revenue asserted that the nature of the product necessitated use by industrial or institutional consumers only, thus not falling under the definition of "retail package" under Rule 2 (p) of P.C. Rules.

After hearing both parties and examining the records, it was found that the appellant's assertion of not selling directly to consumers, especially industrial/institutional ones, was unchallenged. As all sales were through dealers, the exclusion under Rule 2 A of P.C. Rules did not apply. Additionally, the absence of an endorsement on packages indicating goods not meant for resale, as per precedents like H&R Johnson India Pvt. Ltd., led to the conclusion that the goods were not cleared for institutional/industrial consumers. The Tribunal's decisions in various cases supported this interpretation.

Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the impugned order was unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates