9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the Adjudicating Authority has been dismissed. The Joint Commissioner, Kanpur by his order dated 31st August 2001 had confirmed the demand of Rs. 47,395/- along with equal amount of penalty against the appellants. 2. The issue involved in the matter is whether the appellants had short paid the excise duty amounting to Rs. 47,395/- on the sale of Kinley Soda bottles during the period from 22nd January 2000 to 11th May 2000 taking into consideration the provisions of law prevalent at the relevant time. While it is the contention of the department that though the appellants had disclosed different MRP for different regions and such a practice was permissible for ascertaining the duty liability in view of the amended explanation to S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect thereof was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority as stated above and the appeal against the same did not yield fruitful result to the appellants. Hence the present appeal. 4. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. case while dealing with the similar case in relation to period from 1st August 1998 to 11th May 2000 and while considering the scope of Explanation 2 to Section 4A of the said Act, held thus :- "12. But the department contends that having regard to Explanation 2 to Section 4A read with Rule 173C(2A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 if a manufacturer declares different retail sale prices for different areas, then the maximum of such retail sale prices will apply to goods of that category ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... printed/declared on the packages, shall be the retail sale price for purposes of Sec. 4A. 14. We find support for this view from the new Explanation 2 to Section 4A which was substituted with effect from 12-5-2001 by Section 95 of Finance Act, 2000. New Explanation 2 reads thus : "Explanation 2. Where on the package of any : (a) excisable goods more than one retail sale price is declared, the maximum of such retail sale price shall be deemed to be the retail sale price for the purposes of this section. Where different retail sale prices are declared on different (b) packages for the sale of any excisable goods in packaged form in different areas, each such retail sale price shall be the retail sale price for the purposes of valuatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be accepted. The form of declaration prescribed under Rule 173C(2A) does not determine the liability. The form cannot be so worded as to put a different meaning on Section 4A(2) or Explanation 2 to Section 4A. Further, if the form of declaration prescribed requires declaration of only one price, the question of Explanation 2 to Section 4A referring to the retail sale price declared in the form of declaration would not arise, as Explanation 2 refers to declaration of more than one retail sale price. When the format of declaration contemplates only one retail sale price being declared and Explanation 2 contemplates more than one retail sale price being declared on the excisable goods, it necessarily follows that Explanation 2 refers to the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
