9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I. The Respondent No.1, M/s AR Polymers Pvt. Ltd. is a manufacturer engaged in the manufacture of footwear and the sale of the same to defense/paramilitary forces in bulk for their use. II. An intelligence was received by the DGCEI that the respondent was availing benefits under notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17/03/12 and Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is limited to footwear sold in retail. The said notification wholly exempts the payment of Central Excise Duty for retail sale of footwear under Rs. 500/- and limits Central Excise Duty to 6% where the rate of the footwear is between Rs. 501/- to Rs. 1000/- III. Acting on the abovementioned intelligence, a team of DGCEI officers visited the factory premises of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that despite several opportunities being afforded to the Respondent and the counsel for the respondent being served the notice, and the matter being called multiple times, none appeared before this Court. 4. The Respondent, due to the tax assessment being less under Section 4(A) of the Act, is seeking benefit under the same, however, due to the assessment under Section (4) of the Act being more, the Appellant is claiming for the assessment to be done thereunder. This appeal, therefore, fundamentally depends on the interpretation of Section 4(A) of the Act. 5. The primary question posed in front of us today is only one, whether the goods sold by the respondent are eligible to claim tax benefits within the purview of the abovementioned n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, which has now been repealed and replaced by the legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules,2011. 8. In the present case at hand, the respondent entered into a sale with the paramilitary and military as per the terms of agreement signed. While the goods in the impugned sale were notified under Section 4(A) of the Act by way of an official notification in the gazette, what is most relevant to us is Rule 3(b) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 which exempts the sale to institutional consumers from its purview. 9. The purchasers in this case are military and paramilitary institutions, both of whom purchase the goods in bulk from the respondent, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o mean that a mere affixation of the MRP on a good does not qualify it to claim benefits under Section 4(A) of the Act, and that there must be a "requirement" for the affixation of such MRP. Therefore, even if there is affixation of MRP in the goods, what must be looked at it is whether such affixation was mandated by law. 14. Apart from the exemption granted by way of Section 3(b) that automatically removes the mandate of law to affix an MRP on the sold goods, the said sale still cannot be considered a retail sale because the sale of the goods must be done to a consumer. 15. A consumer, as clarified by the Jayanti Foods Judgment, is the final consumer of the product, and not the intermediary. In the present case at hand however, the purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
