CESTAT rules no duty on free stapler pins in promo scheme. No double duty on procured pins. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled that the appellant was not liable to pay duty on stapler pins supplied free of cost as part of a promotional ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
CESTAT rules no duty on free stapler pins in promo scheme. No double duty on procured pins.
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled that the appellant was not liable to pay duty on stapler pins supplied free of cost as part of a promotional scheme. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not undertake any additional activity on the stapler pins procured from other manufacturers, as duty had already been paid on them. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for imposing duty on the same stapler pins again and allowed the appellant's stay petition unconditionally, dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty.
Issues: Duty liability on stapler pins supplied free of cost as part of a promotional scheme.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the issue revolved around the duty liability on stapler pins supplied free of cost by the appellant as part of a promotional scheme. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of staplers, procured stapler pins from other manufacturers, which were cleared on payment of duty. These stapler pins were sometimes included in combi-packs of staplers and stapler pins. The appellant availed credit for duty paid on the stapler pins and cleared the carton packs at an MRP inclusive of the cost of the stapler pins.
The Revenue contended that the cost of the stapler pins supplied free of cost to distributors should be added to the MRP of the staplers cleared on payment of duty, as per Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant did not undertake any further activity on the stapler pins procured from other manufacturers. The stapler pins simply accompanied the staplers manufactured by the appellant, on which duty had already been paid. The Tribunal concluded that there were no justifiable reasons to direct the appellant to pay duty for the second time on the same stapler pins, as no additional activity was performed on them by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal dispensed with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, allowing the stay petition unconditionally.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
