Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 507 - CESTAT AHMEDABADMethod of valuation - Clearance made to institutional buyers - Section 4 or 4A of CEA - Revenue under the belief that the supplies to the institutional buyers should also be valued in terms of section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 issued SCN demanding duty - N/N. 2/2005-CE(NT) dated 07.01.2005. HELD THAT:- It is seen that investigations were extended to various customers/ dealers and in para 9 of the impugned order the list of customers has been enumerated. The gist of the investigation is reproduced in para 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the impugned order. The investigations confirmed that no evidence of printing of MRP on institutional supplies made through dealers was found. In fact whatever evidence was produced showed that the products contained the marking “hospital supply-not for sale” only - It is apparent that what is covered in DPCO is only the items which are sold in retail. If a container is sold in retail, the container must contain retail sale price and if the content of such container are also sold in retail then each such pack sold in retail must have the MRP printed on it. From above it is apparent that the provisions are attracted only on goods ‘offered for retail sale’. In the impugned order, it is seen that the words ‘offered for retail sale’ appearing in DPCO 1995 have been overlooked. In the instant case the evidence brought on record does not dispute the claim that the goods sold to institutional buyers were not sold (or offered for sale) in retail sale - The provisions of para 14 and 15 of DPCO 1995 are not attracted in respect of sales to institutional buyers which are not further offered for retail sale. The demand, therefore, cannot be upheld - penalties set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|