9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled price declarations under the relevant Rules and declared the MRP of Coca Cola 500 ml PET Bottle at Rs. 11.25 for clearance exclusively to M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. M/s. HLL was actually purchasing the above goods for their free offer scheme with the sale of flora oil by them. Revenue proceeded against the Respondent on the ground that the valuation should be done under Section 4 and not under Section 4A as the goods were ultimately supplied free of charge by HLL to their customers. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 90,026/-. The Respondents went in appeal to the Commissioner (A). The Commissioner (A) gave a finding that valuation of the goods in the present case would be governed by Section 4A. Therefore, he set asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Notification issued under Section 4A(1). This commodity is also governed by Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, on the sale of the 500 ml Coca Cola bottles the Respondents are required to declare the retail sale price of the goods. He has stated that it is immaterial what M/s. HLL does with the goods once the sale between them has taken place. For the above reasons, the valuation of the goods would be governed by Section 4A. The Commissioner (A) has cited Nestle's case where more or less similar facts are involved. The Tribunal has given a finding as follows : Sub-section (1) of Section 4A empowers the Central Govt. to specify in goods in relation to which the manufacturer is requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of the MRP. The only exception where a manufacturer can deviate from the general rule of printing of MRP on the packages is Rule 34 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Pack. Comm.) Rules, 1977.
5.1The reasoning of the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order appears to be sound. The same is confirmed by the decision of the Tribunal in the Nestle case. The fact that the above decision is under challenge by Revenue the Apex Court is not a proper ground for not following it, especially when the same has not been stayed. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in Revenue's appeal. The same is rejected.
(Operative portion of this order was pronounced in open Court on conclusion of hearing) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
