9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our television sets which are specified item under provision of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondent was discharging central excise duty on the said television sets based upon the MRP price on the television sets. The dispute relates to the said MRP. 3. Revenue's contention is that some of the dealers were ultimately selling these television sets on MRP higher than affixed by the respondent. For the above purpose they have relied upon the assessee's letter dated 3.7.99 intimating that prices are ex-factory and therefore, any expenses subsequent to the sale at factory gate, does not form part of the MRP which means to say that the freight and forwarding charges or any other expenses incurred subsequently by the dealers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d observe that the main issue is that the appellant is selling his colour televisions to his dealers and paying central excise duty at the declared MRP prices at the factory gate under the provision of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. But the Department alleged that their dealers were selling at the price higher than maximum retail sale price declared by the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that out of 100 dealers and clearance of about 1000 TVs, only 40-45 TVs were sold only by two dealers in reference by charging higher price than MRP, the same cannot be made a leading evidence to conclude that appellant is charging higher price than MRP, and the amount charged in excess by dealer has never been passed to the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ational (supra) is not applicable in as much as in that case out of 1.3 lakh Television Sets, there were only six instances showing higher price that the declared MRP whereas in the present case the two deals who had sold at higher price than the declared MRP constitute 6 to 7% of the total sale. We note that even if the Revenue's contention is accepted even then it is the dealers who have sold the television sets at a price more than the declared MRP. Even as per Revenue such sales constitute only 6 to 7%. This indicates that balance 94/93% of the sales are with the same declared MRP. Even in respect of sale price of these two dealers, there is no evidence that the amount collected extra by the said dealers have flown back to the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
