The said notification wholly exempts the payment of Central Excise Duty for retail sale of footwear under Rs.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/procedural-rigidity-and-quashing-of-detention-order/
500/- and limits Central Excise Duty to 6% where the rate of the footwear is between Rs.
Adjudicating authority vide order dated 13.02.2017 passed an order against the respondent holding that the benefit of the aforesaid notification does not extend to the footwear sold by the 2 respondent, and hence the respondent was directed to pay the difference amount between the tax already paid and the tax which was liable to be paid. VI.The respondent, aggrieved by the abovementioned order filed an appeal in the CESTAT, and vide impugned order dated 09.01.2019, the CESTAT overturned the judgment of the adjudicating authority and held that the benefit of the abovementioned notification extends to the Respondent herein. Even at the cost of repetition the following would be the fActors to include the goods in Sections 4-A(1) and (2) of the Act: (i)
The goods should be excisable goods; (ii) They should be such as are sold in the package; (iii) There should be requirement in the SWM Act or the Rules made thereunder or any other law to declare the price of such goods relating to their retail price on the package; (iv) The Central Government must have specified such goods by notification in the Official Gazette; (v) The valuation of such goods would be as per the declared retail sale price on the packages less the amount of abatement.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/land-resumption-and-annulment-setting-aside-impugned-orders/
A bare perusal of Section 4(A) of the Act and the abovementioned judgment would show that to attract a MRP based valuation of goods 1 (2007) 8 SCC 34 4 under the Central Excise Act, the goods should be notified under Section 4(A) of the Act and that such goods must come within the purview of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, which has now been repealed and replaced by the legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules,2011. Due to the purchasers, on account of them being institutional consumers, are exempt from the Legal Metrology (Packaged 5 Commodities) Rules, 2011, and since Section 4(A) of the Act mandates the applicability of the abovesaid rules, the transaction automatically becomes ineligible to claim refuge under Section 4(A) of the Act.
In simpler terms, it would mean that for a sale of goods to take assessment benefits under Section 4(A) of the Act, it must be a retail sale, and there must be a mandate of law that directs the seller to affix a retail price on the goods for a sale to be considered a retail sale.
Further, since the impugned sale is not a retail sale as per the Act, there exists no mandate of law on the Respondent herein to affix an MRP on the goods sold, and hence the said impugned transaction cannot claim benefit under Section 4(A) of the Act.
In view of the above-mentioned facts and discussions, the CESTAT committed an error in law by passing the impugned order dated 09.01.2019 and the Respondent being under an obligation is directed to pay the differential amount to the relevant tax authority.
Case Title: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND S.T. KANPUR Vs. M/S A. R. POLYMERS PVT. LTD. ETC. (2023 INSC 268)
Case Number: C.A. No.-009569-009570 / 2019
