TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 606
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....41/- confirmed by the adjudicating authority and also a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the adjudicating authority under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are as follows. 2.1 M/s. Vadilal Dairy International Ltd., Thane (assessee in short) are engaged in the manufacture of Ice Cream and Ice Candy falling under Chapter Heading No. 21.05 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said goods are assessed to central excise duty on the basis of retail sale price in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The assessee had printed/declared different Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) for different regions such as Mumbai/Thane/Rest of Maharashtra/Goa and A.P/Karnataka/Kerala on the same ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals) who has set aside the order of the lower adjudicating authority relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Goa Bottling Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E. Goa - 2001 (128) E.L.T. 81 (Tri. L.B.). The department is in appeal against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The department's argument is that Explanation 2 to sub-section (2) to Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 reads as follows :- "Explanation 2 - Where on any excisable goods more than one retail sale price is declared the maximum of such retail sale price shall be deemed to be retail sale price for the purpose of this section." The contention of the department is that, the above provision is very specific. If more than one retail sale price is decl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted. The facts are completely different and, therefore, the ratio of the judgment in the case of Goa Bottling Co. Ltd. cannot be applied to the present case. The learned DR also relies on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. Jaipur v. M/s. Guljag Chemicals (P) Ltd. - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 743 (T) and C.C.E. Goa v. Nestle India Ltd. - 2007 (208) E.L.T. 358 (Tri.-Mum). In these judicial pronouncements, this Tribunal has held that where different MRPs are printed on the same package, then for purpose of assessment of central excise duty, the highest of the MRP has to be taken. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the assessee on the other hand relies on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Goa Bottling Co. Ltd., (cite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve provision of law, it is absolutely clear that when on a given package, more than one retail sale price is declared, then the maximum of such retail sale price shall be deemed to be retail sale price for purposes of charging central excise levy under Section 4A. We have also seen the Goa Bottling Co. Ltd., case decided by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal. We observe that the facts in that case is substantially different as in that case on a given package, only one MRP was printed and for different packages different MRP was printed. In that context this Tribunal held that what is relevant for purpose of levy is only the MRP printed on the package for clearance and not the MRPs printed on different packages cleared to the different region....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Board's Circular dated 28-10-2002. The said Circular pertains to a situation where more than one MRP was, printed on the same package and other MRPs except one was scored out. In that event, the Board clarified that only that MRP which has not been scored out has to be taken for consideration, and the scored out MRP has to be ignored. Para 3 of the said Board's clarification is given below :- "3. The matter has been therefore further examined in the Board and it has been decided to modify Board's Circular No. 639/30/2002-CX., dated 24-5-2002 to the effect that once an MRP is scored out, (even if it remains visible) and another MRP printed on the package, it could not be said that the package has two MRPs printed on it since the scored....