TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime limitation. Held that:- Section 4A of the Central Excise Act was introduced with the purpose of introduction of collection of excise duty on the basis of MRP. The entire purpose of the said section was to avoid litigation about the includibiliy of various elements in the assessable value of the excisable product - The said section provides for payment of excise duty on the basis of MRP affixed on the same. It is only when an assessee either removes the goods without declaring the retail sale price on the packages or declares a wrong MRP or tampers with or obliterate or alters the retail sale price declared on the packages after their removal from the place of removal, the section 4A can be discarded and the differential duty can be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, the extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/51188/2015-EX [ DB ] - FINAL ORDER NO.71453/2018 - Dated:- 16-7-2018 - MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, HON BLE MEMBER(JUDICIAL) And SHRI ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, HON BLE MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Ms.Rinki Arora (Advocate) for the Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Addl.Commr.) (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa After hearing both sides duly represented by Ms.Rinki Arora (Advocate) and Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Addl.Commr.) (AR) we find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of colour television sets classifiable under Chapter Heading 8528.72 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of a show cause notice dated 15.02.2013 raising demand of Central Excise duty to the extent of ₹ 41,65,660/-(Rupees Forty One Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty only) for the period 19.09.2009 to 26.10.2010. 5. The appellant contested the demand by submitting that the TVs are notified items under section 4A of the Central Excise Act requiring them to discharge their duty liability on the MRP affixed on the said set, subject to 30% abatement. They have accordingly discharged their duty liability and the demand of extra duty on ₹ 300/- charged by them from their customers cannot be added back to the assessable value of the goods. The demand was als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant have paid the duty. It has to be noted that the requirement of section 4A is only affixation of MRP on the goods cleared from the factory and there is no condition or obligation on the part of the manufacturer to sell the goods at the assessable value arrived at after grant of abatement. Admittedly after abatement, the assessable value is bound to be lower than the MRP declared and the actual sale price has no relevance with the assessable value as long as it is not more than the MRP. The MRP affixed on the TV was ₹ 2,321/- and the assessable value was ₹ 1,625/-. The appellant was at liberty to sell the goods even at the value shown as MRP i.e. ₹ 2,321/- even though the duty was paid on ₹ 1,625/- inasmuch as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
