2016 (10) TMI 1161 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - manufacturers of Lamps covered under MRP based assessment - It appeared to Revenue that the goods were supplied to Government institutions and they were not meant for retail sale and therefore, assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was inappropriate - Held that - there are no allegations in the show cause notices that the consideration price received was more than the MRP declared on the packing or the abatement availed was more than allowed by notification in the Official Gazette - when all such requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 4 are fulfilled then valuation as per said sub-section (2) shall be equal to the sales price declared less the amount of abatement and there is no scope for invoking provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for such assessment - SCN not sustainable - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for goods supplied to Government institutions. Dispute regarding differential duty calculation based on Section 4 of the Act. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal rejecting the appeal. Interpretation of provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, a manufacturer of Lamps, under MRP based assessment, facing a dispute with the Revenue regarding the assessment of goods supplied to Government institutions under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue contended that the assessment under Section 4A was inappropriate, leading to a demand for duty based on Section 4 provisions. The Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant appealed to the Tribunal after a previous remand by the Tribunal on a similar issue. Another show cause notice was issued for a subsequent period, further escalating the dispute.

The appellant argued that there was no dispute regarding the inclusion of goods in the notification under Section 4A or the availed abatement while assessing the goods. The main contention was the calculation of differential duty based on Section 4 provisions, supported by relevant case laws. The Revenue, represented by the ld. DR, supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal.

Upon considering the contentions and provisions of Section 4A, the Tribunal observed that if the duty of Excise is chargeable based on value for goods specified under Section 4A, the value should be deemed as the retail sale price minus the abatement allowed by the Central Government. Since all requirements of Section 4A were fulfilled, the valuation should be based on the sales price declared less the abatement, without invoking Section 4 provisions for assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal held both show cause notices as unsustainable and allowed both appeals in favor of the appellant with consequential relief as per law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the interpretation of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the context of assessing goods supplied to Government institutions, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling the specified requirements for valuation and highlighting the inapplicability of Section 4 provisions in such cases.