Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 138 - CESTAT CHANDIGARHValuation - Insulating Varnish falling under Chapter 3208 - Whether the appellant is required to pay the duty as per the Section 4A of the Act or Section 4 of the Act? - Held that: - the appellant is manufacturing Insulating Varnish in the packages of 5Kgs, 25Kgs and 205Kgs and affixing the MRP. At the time of the manufacturing of the said goods, the appellant is not known whether these goods are being sold to the industrial consumers or through whole seller or not - there is no allegation that at the time of manufacturing, the appellant was knowing that the goods are meant for industrial consumers. There is no marking on the containers that the goods are meant for industrial use. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for exemption under Rule 34 of the said Rules. Reliance placed in the case of H & R JOHNSON (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD [2014 (6) TMI 453 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that discharge of duty liability tiles supplied in retail packages to real estate developers / developers, etc. has to be made under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - the appellant is not required to pay the duty under Section 4 of the Act and they have correctly paid the duty under Section 4A i.e. the MRP less abatement. Time limitation - Held that: - it is clear that at the time of manufacturing of the said goods, it was not known to the appellant that whether these goods meant for the industrial consumers or for retail sale. In that circumstances, suppression is absent from the facts of the case - extended period not invokable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|