Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Indian Beauty & Hygiene Association & Another Versus Union of India & Another

2016 (4) TMI 689 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Declaration of Retail Sale Price / Fixation of tariff value - Where MRP is not required - Applicability of Section 3(2)- Seeking clarification/direction regarding Notification No. 16/2013 – CE (N.T.) dated 31st December, 2013 - Held that:- the expression “Retail Sale Price declared on such goods” occurring in the impugned Notification has to be read as not requiring any disclosure or declaration of the RSP on the packages in question subject to their fulfilling the parameters of Rule 26 of the L .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntral excise Act - Held that:- The petitioners does not question the power of the Central Government under Section 3(2) of the CE Act to fix the tariff value. They also do not question the constitutional validity of Section 3 of the CT Act in terms of which the CVD can be levied and collected. The issue really is only about the apprehension of the petitioners that they may be compelled to disclose the RSP on the packages contrary to the exemption granted under Rule 26 of the LMPC Rules. This app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rary the CE Act or the CT Act is hereby rejected. Insofar as it only fixes the tariff value as the RSP which the importer has to declare to the Customs authorities, no illegality attaches to the said Notification or the subsequent clarification issued by the TRU on 2nd January 2014. - Petition disposed of - W. P. (C) 3649/2014, CM No. 7413/2014 & CM No. 29211/2015 - Dated:- 7-4-2016 - S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Rahul P. Dave with Mr Amit Dhingra, Mr Vikramaditya .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t No.1 has no application to retail packages which are exempted under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 ( LMPC Rules ) from the requirement of having the retail sale price ('RSP') printed on the package. A mandamus is also sought to direct the Central Board of Excise & Customs ( CBEC ) to issue a necessary clarification/direction to the above effect under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ( CE Act ). 2. Another relief sought .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

10 ml or less. It is, accordingly, contended that the consignments of cosmetic products thus imported and subsequently sold are exempted under Rule 26 of the LMPC Rules from the requirement of having the RSP displayed in the package. It is further stated that, contrary to the plain language of the aforementioned Notification No. 16/2013, the Customs authorities have been insisting on assessing the packages on the basis of their ultimate RSP and requiring the members of the IBHA including the Pet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that percentage of the value of the imported article. This additional duty is also called as countervailing duty (CVD). For determining the CVD, the excise duty that could be levied and collected on an article if it was produced in India, will have to be ascertained. 5. Section 3(2) of the CE Act provides that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix, for the purpose of levying the excise duty tariff value of any article enumerated, either specifically or under ge .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xcisable goods would be deemed to be the RSP displayed on such goods in terms of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (LM Act or the Rules made thereunder). As far as the present case is concerned, the admitted position is that the consignments imported by the members of the IBHA, including Petitioner No. 2, forming the subject matter of the present petition, are not covered under the LM Act or the Rules thereunder as they are cosmetics products each of which is of a weight or measure of 10 gram or 10 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), in retail packages, and in respect of which the provisions of section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) do not apply, equivalent to the retail sale price declared on such goods less such amount of abatement from such retail sale price as specified for such goods in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No.49/2008-Central Excise (N.T.), dated the 24th December, 2008 vide number .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. - For the purposes of this notification, retail package means a package which is intended for retail sale to the ultimate consumer for the purpose of consumption of the goods contained therein and includes an imported package; Provided that for the purposes of this Explanation, the expression ultimate consumer shall not include industrial or institutional consumers. 8. By way of a further elucidation of the above Notification, the Tax Research Unit (TRU) of the Department of Revenue, Ministry .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ection 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 do not apply. The tariff value shall be the retail sale price (RSP) less abatement as prescribed for such goods under notification No.49/2008-Central Excise (NT), dated 24.12.2008. Presently, the abatement rate in respect of goods falling under tariff heading 3304 is 35%. Thus, the tariff value under section 3(2) of the CEA, 1944 for such goods shall be 65% of RSP. 2. Difficulties faced, if any, in implementation of the said notification may be brought t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mmodities equivalent to the RSP "declared on such goods , there cannot be any tariff value for such commodities. In other words, the Petitioners contend that since the packages do not have to display the RSP at which they are sold, there cannot be a tariff value equivalent to such RSP. 10. The stand of the Respondents in the counter affidavit is that tariff value under Section 3(2) of the CE Act has been fixed precisely on those goods which escape assessment under Section 4A of the CE Act s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the RSP has to be pasted on the goods, but the same has to be declared to the assessing officer for the purposes of arriving at the tariff value and calculating CVD. The Petitioner does not deny that the impugned goods are ultimately sold in retail with the RSP affixed on thereon. 11. During the course of the submissions Mr Satish Kumar, learned Senior Standing counsel or the Respondents, further clarified that the Respondents are not insisting that the RSP be affixed on the package and th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s the importer to make a declaration to the Respondents of the RSP at which such goods, in packets of 10gm or 10ml, are to be sold. This has been further confirmed by the communication dated 2nd January, 2014 issued by the TRU which states that the tariff value shall be the RSP prescribed for such goods. Therefore, the RSP referred to in the Notification No. 16/2013 is the RSP disclosed by the importer to the Respondents. It is not denied by the Petitioners that they do have information about th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed under Rule 26 of the LMPC Rules. This apprehension has been laid to rest by the Respondents who have clarified that they will not insist on such disclosure of the RSP on the package as long as the Petitioners otherwise satisfy the requirement of Rule 26 of the LMPC Rules. What the Respondents ask is for a declaration made to them of the RSP at which such commodities are ultimately sold. Therefore, there is no illegality attaching to the impugned Notification. Consequently, the prayer that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version