2018 (2) TMI 356 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal distinguishes retail vs. bulk sales for sugar confectionery valuation under Section 4

The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Lotte India Ltd., emphasizing the distinction between retail and bulk sales for assessing sugar confectionery without ... Valuation - section 4 or 4A? - “Coffee Bite Chocolate” cleared in bulk at the contract price - MRP not affixed - Held that: - the goods i.e., Coffee Bite Chocolates, have been cleared in bulk packs to the customers at contracted price. The packs so cleared did not have the Maximum Retail Price affixed, which were clearly printed with the words “Free with Mintz 500 gm. Jar.” - it is evident that the sale transaction is not in the nature of retail sale but one of bulk sale. The sub-section (2) of section 4A will not be applicable if there is no sale in retail to the ultimate customer - the valuation of the said goods will needs to be done by the assessee u/s 4 of the Act as has been done in the present case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Assessment under Section 4A vs. Section 4 for sugar confectionery without cocoa; Duty demand justification; Requirement of affixing Maximum Retail Price (MRP) for goods not sold in retail.Analysis:The case involved M/s. Lotte India Ltd., appealing against Order-in-Appeal No. 414/2005, regarding the assessment of sugar confectionery without cocoa, specifically 'Coffee Bite Chocolate,' cleared in bulk without Maximum Retail Price (MRP) affixed. The Department contended that the goods should be assessed under Section 4A based on MRP, while the appellant argued for assessment under Section 4 due to bulk sale nature.The Tribunal noted that the goods were cleared in bulk packs without MRP, printed with 'Free with Mintz 500 gm. Jar,' indicating a bulk sale transaction, not retail. As per Section 4A, MRP is required for retail sales, and since the clearance was not retail, Section 4 valuation was appropriate. The Tribunal emphasized that without retail sale, MRP indication was unnecessary, and valuation under Section 4 was correct in this case.The appellant's counsel argued that the goods were sold at contract price in bulk packs, not requiring MRP due to the nature of supply. The Departmental representative supported the original order. However, the Tribunal, after reviewing the case records, concluded that since the sale was in bulk, not retail, Section 4A did not apply, and the valuation under Section 4 was justified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, favoring the appellant.In the final decision delivered on 15-6-2017, the Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Lotte India Ltd., highlighting the distinction between retail and bulk sales in determining the appropriate valuation method under the Customs Act.