TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has correctly discharged the duty liability under section 4A of the Act. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No 1583 and 1584 of 2010 - Final Order No. 60125-60126/2020 - Dated:- 21-1-2020 - Hon ble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri Rakesh Punj, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri A.K.Saini, AR ORDER PER ASHOK JINDAL The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of pesticides and insecticides of less than 10 gms/10 ml. The appellant s unit is located n the State of Jammu Kashmir. The said packages were packed in bigger boxes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal has observed as under:- 7. The consequent point for consideration is whether the multipiece packs from the factory are intended for retail sale as claimed by the appellant and whether such goods intended for retail sale are required to be printed with Maximum Retail Price under the Standards of Weights Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. 8. It is amply clear that a pre-condition for assessment under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 is the mandate to clear packaged goods with Maximum Retail Price printed on them. However, the Central Excise Act, 1944 being a taxation statute, cannot mandate the printing of Maximum Retail Price on the package cleared from the factory. That mandate must emanate from elsewhere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting of Maximum Retail Price on the multipiece pack suffices to express the intent of the producers of the goods and owner brand to market the multi-pack is apparent from the Rules. 7. Considering the fact that the appellant have made packages for retail sale, they are legally bound to affix MRP of the said goods. In the circumstances, the appellant is required to discharge duty in terms of Section 4A of the Act. Therefore, the appellant has correctly discharged the duty liability under section 4A of the Act. 8. In these terms, we do not find merit in the impugned orders and the same are set aside. In the result, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Dictated and pronounced in the open court) - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
