2017 (8) TMI 1514 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal dismisses appeal on Electric Accumulators classification, upholds duty demand under Central Excise Act

EMPIRE INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.), KOLKATA

The appeal regarding the classification and assessment of imported Electric Accumulators Lead Acid Batteries under the Central Excise Act, 1944, was ... Method of Valuation - Section 4 or Section 4A of CEA - imported goods, Electrical Accumulators - classifiable under 85.07 are to be assessed to CVD on the transaction value, in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or in terms of Section 4A on the basis of MRP declared on the packages containing such batteries - Held that:- Under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, the Government has notified various commodities which are necessarily to be assessed under MRP after granting abatements as specified in the notification. On perusal of the notification issued during the relevant time, we note that parts, components and assemblies of automobiles, are specified in the notification and are required to be assessed on MRP basis. C.B.E.C. has clarified the issue vide their Circular No. 167/38/2008-CX-4 dated 16-2-2008 to the effect that batteries used for automobile purposes should be assessed under Section 4A ibid. In the present case, appellant has cleared such goods by declaring the same for assessment under Section 4 and paid Customs duty at lower rate under Section 4 ibid - the valuation needs to be done u/s 4A - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:1. Classification of imported goods for assessment of CVD under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Interpretation of relevant notifications and circulars for assessment of CVD on the basis of MRP for specific goods.3. Adjudication of duty demand and penalty imposition based on misdeclaration of imported goods.Detailed Analysis:1. The appellant imported Electric Accumulators Lead Acid Batteries and cleared them after assessment under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, paying the duty accordingly. However, a subsequent investigation by the revenue department alleged misdeclaration, stating that the goods should have been assessed under Section 4A on the basis of MRP due to being covered under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. The show cause notice was issued for demand of differential duty, leading to the appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 151/ADC(P)/CUS/WB/13 dated 28-8-2013.2. The central issue revolved around the classification of the imported goods - Electrical Accumulators - under 85.07, and whether they should be assessed for CVD based on transaction value under Section 4 or on the MRP basis under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that the government had issued notifications specifying commodities to be assessed under MRP with abatements, including parts, components, and assemblies of automobiles. The Adjudication Authority found that the imported batteries, designed for automobiles, could be considered as parts of automobiles, justifying assessment under Section 4A.3. The appellant argued that the goods were automobile batteries subject to CVD on transaction value under Section 4. However, the department contended that the specific batteries for automobiles fell under the notification for assessment on MRP basis under Section 4A. The Tribunal, after considering the notifications, circulars, and the specific use of the batteries, upheld the impugned order, confirming the duty demand and penalty imposition. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the assessment under Section 4A based on MRP for the imported Electric Accumulators Lead Acid Batteries used in automobiles.