Tribunal Upholds Duty on Table Top Wet Grinders Sold to TNCSC

The Tribunal determined that the table top wet grinders sold to TNCSC should be assessed under Section 4A of the CEA, 1944. The clearance of 1000 Table Top Wet Grinders without payment of duty was found to be improper, and duty was upheld as payable. As there was no differential duty for the period, the extended period for issuing a show cause notice was deemed irrelevant. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, except for the duty related to the 1000 Table Top Wet Grinders cleared in December 2012. The demand under Section 4 of CEA, 1944, and penalty were set aside, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Assessment of Table Top Wet Grinders under Section 4A or Section 4 of the CEA, 1944.
2. Clearance of 1000 Table Top Wet Grinders to TNCSC without payment of any duty.
3. Invocation of extended period for the issue of show cause notice.

Summary:

Issue 1: Assessment under Section 4A or Section 4 of CEA, 1944

The primary issue was whether the table top wet grinders sold by the appellant to TNCSC should be assessed under Section 4A or Section 4 of the CEA, 1944. The Tribunal examined the legal provisions of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (LMPCR, 2011) and their applicability. It was determined that TNCSC is not an "institutional consumer" as per Rule 3 of LMPCR, 2011, as it then stood. The Tribunal referenced the case of Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd Vs Commissioner of C Ex Chennai III, 2015 (327) E.L.T. 115 (Tri. - Chennai), which held that TNCSC is not a service institution and thus the goods should be assessed under Section 4A of CEA, 1944. The Tribunal found that the appellant had correctly applied Section 4A for the clearance of the impugned goods during the pre-amendment period. For the post-amendment period, the Tribunal noted that the amended Rule 2 and 3 of LMPCR, 2011, which introduced broader definitions, were not part of the show cause notice, and thus the demand based on Section 4 of CEA, 1944, for the post-amendment period must fail.

Issue 2: Clearance without payment of duty

The Tribunal considered whether the clearance of 1000 Table Top Wet Grinders to TNCSC in December 2012 without payment of any duty was proper. It was noted that the appellant had paid the duty along with interest during the investigation. The Tribunal upheld the appropriation of the amounts paid during the investigation as correct, affirming that duty was payable on the 1000 Table Top Wet Grinders cleared to TNCSC in December 2012, and the valuation for the same would be as per Section 4A of CEA, 1944.

Issue 3: Invocation of extended period for show cause notice

The Tribunal found that with no differential duty payable for the entire period, the question of invoking the extended period for the issue of a show cause notice lost relevance. The appellant's reliance on an audit report advising them to follow Section 4A was found to be suspicious and unreliable, as it was not authenticated or properly introduced during the proceedings.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, except for the amounts confirmed relating to the 1000 Table Top Wet Grinders cleared to TNCSC in December 2012. The Tribunal set aside the demand for duty quantified under Section 4 of CEA, 1944, and the penalty imposed, as they were not legally sustainable. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---