https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293707 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the goods were correctly assessed under section 4, not section 4A, of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision emphasized the importance of the intention for non-retail sale in determining duty liability. It clarified that the obligation to affix 'maximum retail price' primarily lies with pre-packagers, not manufacturers, and highlighted that goods supplied to institutional consumers like the Canteen Stores Department are not automatically subject to legal metrology laws or excise duty. The judgment differentiated between institutional consumers and end customers, exempting the former from retail pricing regulations. en-us Tue, 01 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Apr 2021 18:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293707 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the goods were correctly assessed under section 4, not section 4A, of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision emphasized the importance of the intention for non-retail sale in determining duty liability. It clarified that the obligation to affix 'maximum retail price' primarily lies with pre-packagers, not manufacturers, and highlighted that goods supplied to institutional consumers like the Canteen Stores Department are not automatically subject to legal metrology laws or excise duty. The judgment differentiated between institutional consumers and end customers, exempting the former from retail pricing regulations. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293707