TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d are disposed of under this common order. 2. Material facts may be noted first. M/s. Viacom Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Dixon Utilities Exports Ltd. are manufacturers of Television sets. They manufactured and supplied colour Television sets to M/s. Baron International Ltd. who marketed those T.V. sets through dealers. The dispute is about valuation of the colour Television sets so marketed, during the period 16-9-97 to 31-5-98. 3. At the time of removal of sets from the factory, the assessable value of the Television sets was determined under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. That Section provides for determination of assessable value based on Maximum Retail Price (MRP) affixed on the sets. In regard to the impugned T.V. sets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sizes of Television sets and the difference between the RSP for under exchange scheme and clean sales was Rs. 2000/- or less. Another contention was that, in view of the disputes about assessable value in respect of exchange sales of television sets by other Television manufacturer as well, the Consumer Electronics and Television Manufacturer Association (CETMA) had urged in a letter dated 25-9-98 to the Chairman of the CBEC that the average price found for old Television sets should be adopted for loading the RSP of Television sets sold on exchange. That letter also indicated that an amount of Rs. 2000/- was the average price of second-hand Television sets in the Bombay market. The appellant, therefore, submitted that the MRP of exchange s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e taken for the purpose of determining the commercial value of those sets. He has contended that since CETMA had ascertained an amount of Rs. 2000/- as average value of old sets, and Revenue had no evidence to the contrary, the Commissioner's finding that Rs. 2000/- is the average price cannot be doubted. He has also pointed out that before re-sale of the old sets, they would require to be attended to by way of repair, refurbishing etc. Further, warranty is also offered. Another objection raised by the ld. Counsel against addition of Rs. 4500/- as canvassed by the Revenue is that, MRP so worked out, would go much above the MRP of comparable 'clean' sale identical sets. The contention of the ld. Counsel is that, since Revenue has not dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner to verify the records and report whether same or identical models were declared both under the exchange scheme as well as under non-exchange scheme during the impugned period. The Assistant Commissioner reported that only 14W9 and 21W9 (as per the instruction manuals of 21W9, 21W9E 21W9S are the same models only suffix having been introduced to make distinction between under exchange scheme and non-exchange scheme models), models of AKAI CTV were declared during the impugned period both under exchange as well as non-exchange schemes. That means the CTVs in the segments of 20", 25"and 29" screen size were not declared for sale under exchange as well as non-exchange schemes during the impugned period. In respect of 14" CTV it is observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scheme. It is on record that such clean sales were available during the relevant period in the case of two sizes of Television sets. The difference in price was Rs. 2000/- in one case and Rs. 1010/- in the other. Commissioner adopted the higher amount for loading, being in revenue's favour. Further CETMA had reported that Rs. 2000/- is the average price of a second-hand set. The issue required to be considered was whether such addition yielded the normal MRP and a correct basis for the valuation of TV sets sold in exchange. The Commissioner reached the conclusion that addition of Rs. 2000/- per set yielded the correct MRP. Revenue challenges the correctness of that decision. We are not able to find any merit in the Revenue's case. At no sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectly merit valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, this grievance of the Revenue is not sustainable. 13. The last grievance of the Revenue is in regard to stocks which had been seized during investigation. It is being pointed out that, upon a finding that the goods were not correctly valued, the Commissioner should have held the seized goods to be liable for confiscation and the respondent liable for penalty. We are not able to find merit in this contention of the Revenue. We find that full facts about the MRP had been declared by the appellant. The declarations before the Revenue authorities, clearly mentioned that the RSPs were for goods cleared under exchange. They also declared, contemporaneously, higher RSPs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
