Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2020 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 804 - AT - CustomsValuation of import goods - automobile parts - requirement of affixing of ‘retail selling price’ - goods, subject to assessment under section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 when manufactured in India, are mandatorily to be subject to additional duties of customs under the corresponding proviso in Customs Tariff Act, 1975 even when not sold ‘as such’ after import - notification no. 44(RE-2000)/97-2002 dated 24th November 2000 - Third Member, has held, by majority, that there was no provision for assessment by recourse to ‘retail selling price’ except upon voluntary adoption at the time of import - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, appellant is barred from disposal of the impugned goods without affixing the various particulars prescribed under Legal Metrology Act, 2011 and, therefore, in conjunction with inclusion in Third Schedule of Central Excise Act, 1944, the goods cannot be denied assessment to additional duty of customs by reference to declared, or assessed, transaction value. The expression that is variably deployed in connection with such assessment is ‘intended for retail sale’ and, thereby, implies the existence of such labelled price from the time of import or clearance from factory, as the case may be, till arrival at the point of retail sale as demonstrative of intention. Such goods when routed through channels for industrial/institutional consumers are explicitly excluded from the statutory requirement under Legal Metrology Act, 2011. It would, therefore, appear that demonstrated intention of the importer/manufacturer by affixing of ‘retail selling price’ is the sole decider for adopting the alternative mechanism for assessment of additional duties of customs or duties of central excise, as the case may be. From the decision of the Tribunal in STARLITE COMPONENTS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASHIK [2013 (4) TMI 624 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], it is deduced that, even if such goods are covered by notification for assessment to duties of central excise on ‘retail selling price’ to the extent that these are further subject to duties of central excise in circumstances of inclusion in the Third Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the prescription of affixing of ‘retail selling price’ and assessment thereof does not arise. Therefore, the consequence is assessment on the basis of transaction value. The assessment insisted upon in the impugned order is not in accordance with law - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|