9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Colour Televisions (CTVs) to branches for evaluation/display purpose. (ii) While clearing these CTVs, the appellant discharged the duty liability based on maximum retail price (MRP) indicated on the package and cleared the same to their branches. (iii) These sets were subsequently sold by the branches to end customers, who were the employees of the appellant. (iv) The Revenue proposed the demand of duty on the ground that since the sets were cleared for evaluation/display purpose the Central Excise duty ought to have been discharged at specific rate of duty as per the Notification No.5/99 dated 28.2.1999, No.3/2001 dated 1.3.2001 and No.6/2002 dated 1.3.2002. (v) The Show-cause notice (SCN) issued to the appellant proposed penalty under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002 also makes a mention that for the purpose of Entry at Sl. No.(i) where rate of duty is 16% retail sale price means the maximum price at which the excisable goods in packaged form may be sold to the ultimate consumer, and includes all taxes local or otherwise, freight, transport charges, commission payable to dealers, and all charges towards advertisements, delivery, packing, forwarding and the like, as the case may be, and the price is the sole consideration for such sale. 4.2 It is pointed out that the subject goods were not standard product of the appellant, and they were stock transferred to the depots/branches of the appellant for the main purpose of evaluation and display as market strategy before commencement of either their bul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icular when all such impugned goods were at a later date after evaluation etc., sold to their own staff/employees who were not independent buyers, in the normal course of trade. The case laws cited by the appellant will also not be of any help the appellants as the facts are distinguishable as detailed below: 2004 (167) ELT 385 (SC) Sony India Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi in Civil Appeal No.4964 of 2000 decided on 5.5.2004. Television - Colour Television - Whether liable to duty on ad valorem basis or at specific rates as provided in Notification dated 2-6-1998 issued under Section 4A(a) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - CTVs cleared from factory to depot without indicating price thereof though it was mandatory for assessee to print maximum retail pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
