Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (10) TMI 512 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (10) TMI 512 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Valuation - whether in the case where the footwear supplied to industries would be valued under Section 4 or Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 when the package of footwear bearing of MRP? - Held that:- We find that there is no dispute in case that footwear supply in packages to the industries is not eligible for exemption provided under Rule 34 of The Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rule, 1977. If this is so, then the supplier .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Rule 34 of The Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rule, 1977. The valuation of footwear shall be correctly made under Section 4A and not under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Application No. E/CO/149/06-Mum, Appeal No. E/4145/05-Mum - Order No. A/90670-90671/16/EB. - Dated:- 26-9-2016 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri M.P. Damle, Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) for Appellant Shri Sachin S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

above issue held that the footwear supplied to the industries would be valued under Section 4 on the ground that the supply made to industry is in bulk. Therefore there is no requirement to declare the retail sale price in the bulk sale to industrial buyers. Accordingly the demands of differential Excise duty were confirmed. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original the appellant had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal both on merits as well as on limitation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2 (145) ELT 626 (Tri.-Del.). 4. On the other hand, Shri Sachin S. Kulkarni learned Counsel for the respondent taking support from the impugned order, submits that the Section 4A will apply only in such cases where it is mandatory requirement to affix the MRP on the packages of product. In the present case as per the clarification issued by Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology, Ahmednagar, even in the case where the supply of packaged goods are involved, the respondent is liable to affix the p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xcise, Panchkula Vs. Liberty Shoes Ltd. [2015 (326) ELT 422 (S.C.)]. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that there is no dispute in case that footwear supply in packages to the industries is not eligible for exemption provided under Rule 34 of The Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rule, 1977. If this is so, then the supplier is required to affix the MRP statutory on each package of product. When the requirement to affix the MR .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ootwear shall be correctly made under Section 4A and not under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Liberty Shoes Ltd. (supra) directly applies in the fact of the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 12. Once we find that the footwear is an item which is specified under Section 4A, which is covered by Weights and Measures Act and Rules, and MRP was affixed on the products supplied, which were not exempted under Ru .....

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 provisions of Chapter II would apply to packages intended for retail sale and expression package wherever it occurs in the Chapter shall be construed accordingly. It is, therefore, clear that the package which was sold by the assessee could not be termed as retail package nor the sale thereof be termed as a retail sale and as such there was no requirement of mentioning the retail sale price on that package. All this has been completely missed in the order of the Tribunal. 33. On the other .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

kages or net quantity. Shri Ravinder Narain is quite justified in relying on Rule 2(x) and Rule 2(q) (sic 29). The Tribunal does not refer to these vital Rules. 34. There is one more substantial reason supporting the appellant. Shri Ravinder Narain invited our attention to Rule 34 in Chapter V of the SWM (PC) Rules which provides for exemptions. We have quoted Rule 34 earlier. The Rule has now been amended. However, under the unamended Rule there is a specific declaration that the SWM (PC) Rules .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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