2002 (1) TMI 729 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacturers win appeal over MRP duty demand & penalty, Tribunal deems revised MRP stickers compliant.

HINDUSTAN APPLIANCES Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NEW DELHI

The Tribunal set aside the duty demand of over Rs. 41 lakhs and penalty imposed on manufacturers of domestic appliances for incorrect MRP declaration. The ... Valuation - Maximum Retail Price - Demand - Penalty Issues:- Duty demand based on incorrect MRP declaration- Compliance with legal provisions regarding declaration of MRPs- Interpretation of Section 4A of Central Excise Act and Weights & Measures Rules- Justification of duty demand and penalty imposition- Applicability of Explanation 2 to Section 4A of the Central Excise Act- Adequacy of evidence supporting duty demand- Conclusion on the sustainability of duty demand and penalty impositionAnalysis:1. Duty Demand Based on Incorrect MRP Declaration:The appellants, manufacturers of domestic appliances, faced a duty demand of over Rs. 41 lakhs for not paying duty based on correct MRPs but on lower amounts mentioned in sale invoices. The duty demand was made for appliances removed during a specific period, and a penalty equal to the duty amount was imposed along with interest. The dispute arose from the method of declaring MRPs on cartons and the subsequent valuation for Central Excise duty purposes.2. Compliance with Legal Provisions Regarding Declaration of MRPs:The appellants argued that they affixed stickers with revised MRPs over existing printed MRPs on cartons to comply with the requirement of declaring retail sale prices. The Commissioner's finding that declaration should be by way of printing on packages was challenged, asserting that affixing labels/stickers also fulfills legal requirements under the Weights & Measures Act and rules. The contention was supported by Section 4A of the Central Excise Act and relevant Weights & Measures Rules.3. Interpretation of Section 4A of Central Excise Act and Weights & Measures Rules:Section 4A mandates valuation based on the retail sale price declared on goods, allowing for affixing labels securely on packages. The appellant's method of affixing stickers with revised MRPs was deemed compliant with legal provisions. The Commissioner's interpretation that two MRPs were declared was refuted, as the revised MRPs on stickers superseded the original MRPs printed on cartons.4. Justification of Duty Demand and Penalty Imposition:The Commissioner's order, based on a particular legal view of MRP declaration, was challenged for lacking legal or factual basis. The investigation results showed that the majority of goods in the distribution chain had stickers with revised MRPs affixed over printed prices, supporting the appellant's compliance with valuation requirements. The discrepancy in a small number of cartons with old MRPs did not justify the duty demand or penalty imposition.5. Applicability of Explanation 2 to Section 4A of the Central Excise Act:Explanation 2 to Section 4A, deeming the maximum retail sale price as the declared price, was cited to support the duty demand. However, the facts of the case did not align with this interpretation, as the revised MRPs on stickers effectively replaced the original MRPs on cartons, negating the need to consider multiple MRPs.6. Adequacy of Evidence Supporting Duty Demand:The investigation findings, supported by the appellant's records, indicated compliance with legal provisions in declaring MRPs. The small discrepancy in a few cartons did not invalidate the overall compliance with valuation requirements. The duty demand and penalty imposition were deemed unsustainable based on the evidence presented.7. Conclusion on the Sustainability of Duty Demand and Penalty Imposition:Considering the legal provisions, factual evidence, and interpretation of MRP declaration requirements, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. The duty demand and penalty imposition were found to be unjustified, given the appellant's compliance with valuation rules and the lack of substantial evidence supporting the allegations.