TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from lower MRP to higher MRP branches, they were sold to customers only on the higher MRP. This being so, there is a clear observation and finding in the impugned order by Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellants have altered the MRP and therefore is liable to pay differential duty which in our view is factually wrong - where retail sale price declared on the packet is altered to increase the retail sale price, such altered retail sale price shall be deemed to be the retail sale price. The said amendment having come into effect on 14.5.2003, the demand made for the period prior to 13.5.2003 is not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/Misc./40173/2017 and E/468/2007 - Final Order No. 41370 / 2017 - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal authority confirmed the duty demand along with interest and imposed equal penalty. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, learned counsel Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran explained that the show cause notice has been issued on erroneous interpretation of the amendment dated 14.5.2003 brought to sub-clause (4) of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. That prior to 1.3.1999, washing machines were assessable under section 4 and with effect from 1.3.1999, these goods became notified and were assessable on the basis of MRP under section 4A. Accordingly, the appellants had assessed the value of the goods at MRP after deducting 40% abatement. The appellant sold washing machines at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the declared price after removing. That this is factually wrong. There is no finding by adjudicating authority that appellant had altered the MRP. He drew our attention to the synopsis filed by them at the time of personal hearing before the adjudicating authority and also to the relevant provisions of Section 4A as it stood for the period from 12.5.2000 to 13.5.2003 (disputed period) as well as the amendment brought forth in sub-clause (4) of section 4A applicable with effect from 14.5.2003. He submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erroneously come to the conclusion that in such transfer, the appellant has altered the MRP and that the amendment dated 14.5.2003 is applicable. That though in such inter branch transfer, the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise Act, 1944. 6. On perusal of the records, we understand that there is no allegation in the show cause notice that the appellants have altered the MRP. There is also no allegation or evidence that the goods which were transferred from lower MRP to higher MRP branches, they were sold to customers only on the higher MRP. This being so, there is a clear observation and finding in the impugned order by Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellants have altered the MRP and therefore is liable to pay differential duty which in our view is factually wrong. Further, the law as it stood during the disputed period clearly states that where different retail sale price was declared on different packages in different areas each, such retail p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
