2008 (7) TMI 97 - AT - Central Excise

Colour television (CTV) supplied only to hotel industry and not to the open market for retail appellants were clearing the same on payment of duty in terms of the Section 4A based upon MRP fixed on the CTVs since packaging is not indicating exclusive use in hotels Revenue s submission that no MRP was required to be fixed on the CTVs in terms of the Rule 34(a) of Standard of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules is not acceptable valuation u/s 4A is justified

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over the requirement of MRP on color televisions supplied to hotel industry under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The appeals arose from an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the manufacture and supply of color televisions (CTVs) of a specific model to a company supplying to the hotel industry. The Revenue argued that since the CTVs were intended for exclusive use by the hotel industry and not for retail, MRP was not required to be fixed as per Rule 34(a) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The original adjudicating authority confirmed a duty demand against the manufacturer and the company, leading to the appeals. The Tribunal noted that CTVs are specified items under Section 4A of the Act and analyzed the provisions of Rule 34(A) to determine the requirement of MRP. It was observed that the goods did not bear any unambiguous marking indicating they were specifically packed for the hotel industry, as required by the rule for exemption from MRP. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of such a marking meant the provisions of Rule 34(a) were not applicable, and duty payment based on MRP was lawful.

The Tribunal cited a previous decision involving Philips Electronics (I) Ltd., which held that CTVs supplied to hotels for exclusive use are not covered by the exemption under Rule 34(1)(a) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. This supported the correctness of duty payment under Section 4A. The Tribunal noted that this decision was not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) and highlighted the reversal of earlier Board instructions following a Supreme Court order. In light of these factors, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, providing consequential relief to the appellants.