Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2014 (12) TMI 822 - AT - Central ExciseValuation of goods u/s 4 or 4A - Biscuits cleared to Municipal Corporation of Delhi under the National Programme of Nutritional Support of Primary Education - adjudicating authority held that the supplies of biscuits to MCD did not qualify to be called retail sale MRP was not required to be printed thereon the price printed on packages was not (true) MRP and the impugned goods were required to be assessed not under Section 4A but under Section 4 - suppression of facts - Held that - packages of 61gms. and 71gms. are not in accordance with the requirements of the SWM (PC) Rules and the contract price itself was fixed keeping in view that MCD supplied wheat (for making biscuits) free of cost. This obviously means that the so called MRP was legally not MRP in terms of SWM (PC) Rules; it was just a figure mentioned on the packages in the name of MRP. Further supplies to MCD were not even a sale at arms length because as per the contract under which the goods were supplied the MCD provided them free wheat. It is thus evident from the definition of retail sale price quoted earlier that the price at which MCD bought the impugned goods cannot be called MRP because that price was negotiated taking into account the fact that the appellants were given free supply of wheat. So it is beyond doubt that what was mentioned on those packages was not MRP. Thus ground on which the appellants attempted to distinguish their case from the cases of Australian Foods Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) and Nestle India Ltd. 2009 (5) TMI 766 - CESTAT BANGALORE is not sustainable. From the foregoing there remains no doubt that the biscuits supplied to MCD are not eligible for assessment in terms of Section 4A and consequently the demand of differential duty is clearly sustainable. As regards the allegation of suppression of facts it is evident that they had nowhere declared that they were getting free supply of wheat from MCD and in spite of being fully aware of this fact they deliberately and misleadingly claimed that Rs. 2 printed on each of the packages was the correct MRP and that too for all packages ranging in weight from 61 gms. to 71 gms to 100 gms each. This shows that they were just printing a price in the name of MRP for the sake of making a claim for assessment under Section 4A and thereby evade duty by hoodwinking Revenue. Thus the suppression of facts and intent to evade duty are more than evident in this case. Both Shri Bajaj and Shri Maheshwari by virtue of their position knew of and allowed this modus operandi and thus abetted the evasion of duty which made the impugned goods liable to confiscation. In the circumstances mens rea on the part of the appellants is clearly evident making them liable to penalties adjudged by the adjudicating authority. - Decided against assessee.
|