TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (11) TMI 479
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and a total penalty of Rs. 7,10,000/- imposed on them. The impugned order deals with valuation of the clearances of footwear made by PEL during June '98 to March '02, adopting MRP based assessment in terms of Section 4 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act). 2. PEL manufactures and clears footwear mostly on assessment in terms of Section 4 of the Act. These are cleared in bulk for use by personnel employed in particular industry. The appellants also manufacture footwear for export. Surplus production of such footwear/seconds are cleared in the domestic market. These are sold at the factory gate of the assessee or at the exhibitions organized by it. The footwears carry its retail price printed on the insole. There is also a stick....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s organized for that purpose and that there were no other instrumentalities between customers and the manufacturers was no valid ground to deny the MRP based assessment. (iii) There was no allegation that the price realized was in excess of the MRP marked. (iv) It was not essential that the assessee incurred various elements of cost/expenditure in order to follow Section 4A assessment. (v) By marking MRP on the footwear itself and not on the package they had not failed to fulfill any of the requirements under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (SWM-PC Rules). Selling shoes in a plain carton was not a relevant criterion. 5. It was submitted that fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ltimate customer could not be charged a higher price. 6.1 In support of the claim that the assessment followed was in accordance with law, the ld. Counsel for the appellants relied on the following case law : (i) Jayanti Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 327 (S.C.) (ii) Mona Electronics v. CCE, Patna - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 1293 (Tri. - Kolkata) (iii) Bata India Ltd. v. CCE, Patna - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 78 (Tribunal) 6.2 We have also heard the ld JDR who reiterates the findings in the impugned order. 7. We have carefully studied the case records and the submissions by both sides. The scope and applicability of Section 4A in the context of valuation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he amount of abatement." 7.1 In the instant case, the finding that sale by the manufacturer disentitled assessment of impugned goods on MRP basis was reached without any valid basis. We find that the impugned transactions have all the characteristics identified by the Apex Court in the Jayanti Food Processing case (Supra) to be covered by the provisions of Section 4 A of the Act. The goods were packed in retail package as defined in Rule 2(p) of SWM-PC Rules . The sale is at the retail price marked on the product. The goods were sold by the manufacturer in retail directly to the consumer. Rule 23(2) of SWM - PC Rules prescribes that no retail dealer or other person including a manufacturer shall sell packaged commodity at a price abov....