Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether electric fans supplied by the assessee to government departments under DGS&D rate contract were liable to valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under Section 4 of that Act.
Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the supplies were covered by the Packaged Commodities regime so that declaration of MRP was mandatory and the goods could be assessed on the basis of retail sale price under Section 4A. The Tribunal accepted the factual finding that the concerned legal metrology authority had clarified that supplies made under DGS&D rate contract to institutions fell within the ambit of the Packaged Commodities Rules and that all such packages were required to bear MRP. It further held that the revenue's reliance on the nature of the sale and on the absence of intermediary dealers did not displace the statutory and regulatory treatment of the goods for valuation purposes.
Conclusion: The supplies were correctly assessed under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and not under Section 4.
Final Conclusion: The revenue's challenge failed, and the assessee's valuation under the MRP-based regime was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the goods are covered by the Packaged Commodities rules and the competent metrology authority has treated MRP declaration as mandatory, valuation under Section 4A applies notwithstanding that the supplies are made to government departments under DGS&D rate contract.