2015 (10) TMI 1146 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT Chennai Waives Predeposit based on State Retail Price Discrepancy

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai ruled in favor of the appellants, waiving the predeposit based on the difference in retail prices declared for ... Waiver of pre deposit - Valuation - Held that:- As per MRP declared on the packets, appellants are manufacturing batteries and clearing under the MRP. As per the declaration in respect of batteries manufactured for Amco Batteries Ltd. they have declared two MRP one for 'other States' i.e. ₹ 2,336/- and ₹ 2,440/- for 'Maharashtra'. Since clearance to Maharashtra attracts Octroi the price of ₹ 2,440/- is inclusive of octroi amount - In view of the citations relied by the appellant in the casesof SMV Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (2011 (12) TMI 432 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) and Amtrex Hitachi Appliances Ltd. (2008 (7) TMI 319 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD), appellants have made out a prima facie case for waiver of entire amount of dues. Accordingly, predeposit of entire dues stands waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeals. - Stay granted. Issues involved:- Waiver of predeposit based on the difference in retail prices declared for different states.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai involved a common issue regarding the waiver of predeposit based on the difference in retail prices declared for different states. The appellants argued that the higher retail price declared for Maharashtra was due to the octroi payable in that state, and there was no actual variation in the price apart from the octroi amount. They cited precedents such as SMV Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and Amtrex Hitachi Appliances Ltd. to support their case. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative contended that both prices were declared on the same packet, and referred to the decision in the case of H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and examining the records, found that the appellants were manufacturing batteries and clearing them under the MRP. The price difference for Maharashtra was due to the octroi amount included in the declared MRP. Relying on the precedents cited by the appellants, the Tribunal concluded that a prima facie case for waiver of the entire amount of dues was established. Therefore, the predeposit of the entire dues was waived, and the recovery was stayed during the pendency of the appeals. All three miscellaneous applications were allowed by the Tribunal.