Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1276 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - Colour television sets - abatement - goods notified under section 4A of the Central Excise Act - appellant declared the MRP on the colour TV sets to the extent of ₹ 2,321/- per set and discharged duty on the same after taking 30% abatements i.e. on ₹ 1,625/- per set in terms of provisions of section 4A of the Central Excise Act - Revenue entertained a view that inasmuch as duty was being paid on ₹ 1,625/- whereas the appellant was receiving the consideration of ₹ 1,925/- per set from their customers, the differential amount of ₹ 300/- is required to discharge duty of excise - time limitation. Held that:- Section 4A of the Central Excise Act was introduced with the purpose of introduction of collection of excise duty on the basis of MRP. The entire purpose of the said section was to avoid litigation about the includibiliy of various elements in the assessable value of the excisable product - The said section provides for payment of excise duty on the basis of MRP affixed on the same. It is only when an assessee either removes the goods without declaring the retail sale price on the packages or declares a wrong MRP or tampers with or obliterate or alters the retail sale price declared on the packages after their removal from the place of removal, the section 4A can be discarded and the differential duty can be demanded. In the present case the MRP was declared on the TV sets at ₹ 2,321/- per set. It is not the Revenue’s case that the TV sets have been sold at an MRP which is higher than ₹ 2,321/-. Further the said section provides for arriving at the assessable value after an abatement to the extent of 30%. As such the assessable value would be ₹ 1,625/-, on which the appellant have paid the duty - Admittedly after abatement, the assessable value is bound to be lower than the MRP declared and the actual sale price has no relevance with the assessable value as long as it is not more than the MRP. The sale price of goods being actually ₹ 1,925/- which is admittedly less than the declared MRP, would not become the assessable value of the goods by adding back the differential amount of ₹ 300/- per set in the assessable value. That would defeat the very purpose of introduction of section 4A of the Central Excise Act inasmuch as the same would amount to assessments under section 4 of the Act, which is not permissible. Time limitation - Held that:- Admittedly the appellants were issuing the invoices clearly showing the prices of the goods as ₹ 1,925/-. In such a scenario, it cannot be said that there was any mala fide on the part of the appellant to evade payment of duty - also, the issue being a bonafide dispute of interpretation of the provisions of law and in the absence of any positive evidence to show the mala fide intention of the appellant, the extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|