Procedural lapse in job worker clearance did not justify MRP revaluation for differential duty on multi-piece soap packs.

Failure to obtain fresh permission under Rule 4(6) for clearance of goods from a job worker's premises was treated as a procedural lapse, not a basis for revaluing the goods on the MRP of individual soap packs. The soaps were cleared as multi-piece packages, duty had been paid on the MRP printed on the wrapper of the multi-piece package, and the earlier permission plus a request for further permission supported the assessee's position. The Board's circular dated 28-10-2002 also supported this approach. On these facts, no differential duty was payable and the demand was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-obtaining of permission under Rule 4(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 / 2002 for clearance of goods from the job worker's premises justified demanding differential duty on the basis of the MRP of each individual soap pack instead of the MRP of the multi-piece package.

Analysis: The clearance of soaps from the job worker's premises was found to involve only a procedural lapse, as permission had earlier been obtained and the assessee had sought further permission. The goods were ultimately cleared as multi-piece packages, and duty had been paid on the MRP printed on the wrapper of the multi-piece package. The absence of a fresh permission for the relevant period did not, by itself, warrant ignoring the package MRP and substituting the individual soap MRP for valuation. The Board's Circular dated 28-10-2002 supported the view that no differential duty was payable on the facts found.

Conclusion: The demand of differential duty was not sustainable and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---