TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Valuation Order & Duty Demand, Appellant's Appeal Partly Allowed</h1> <h3>MOUNT EVEREST MINERAL WATER LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH</h3> MOUNT EVEREST MINERAL WATER LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 52 (Tri. - Del.) Issues: Valuation of Mineral Water under Section 4A of Central Excise Act based on MRP with multiple prices marked on the product.Analysis:1. The appellant, a manufacturer of Mineral Water, faced a valuation issue under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, where the MRP printed on the product was the basis for valuation. The water bottle had multiple prices marked, leading to a dispute on which price to consider for valuation.2. The Revenue argued that Explanation 2(a) under Section 4A applied, stating that when multiple retail prices are declared on a package, the highest price should be deemed as the retail price for valuation purposes. Since the bottle had three prices marked, the Revenue contended that the highest price should be considered for valuation.3. On the other hand, the appellant argued that the different prices were for different regions, and each price should be considered for assessment based on the region to which the product is cleared. However, the Tribunal noted that the Explanation was unqualified, mandating the highest price to be considered regardless of the reasons for different prices on the package.4. The Tribunal found that the appellant's case fell under the second Explanation at 2(b), which required different prices to be marked on different packages for different areas. Since the appellant's goods did not meet this requirement, the highest price had to be considered for valuation. Consequently, the valuation and duty demand were upheld, while penalties were deemed unjustified as the demands were within the normal period.5. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the order of valuation and duty demand, setting aside the penalties. The appeals were partly allowed in favor of the Revenue based on the interpretation of the valuation rules under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
