TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act, 1944. The period of dispute in this case is from 1-6-2006 to 31-12-2008 and from 1-1-2009 to 31-10-2010. During this period, the appellant was clearing automobile parts to - (a) automobile manufacturers as original equipment parts (OE parts) in loose condition on which duty was being paid on transaction value under section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (b) Spare parts division of automobile manufactures in packings containing 1 to 10 piece and on which as per the instructions of manufacturers, labels mentioning the MRP and other particulars like manufacturer' name, part No. etc. were being affixed and on which duty was paid on value determined, under section 4A; and (c) wholesale dealers to whom the goods was being sold in boxes of 100 pcs. each and on which duty was paid on transaction value under section 4. 1.2 There is no dispute about the clearances of category (a). The dispute is about the clearances of category (b) and (c) as the department's contention is that - (A) even in respect of clearances of category (b) for spare parts division of automobile manufacturers, duty on the value under section 4A has not been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les in respect of which the duty has been paid on the transaction value determined under Section 4, that in respect of clearances to Spare Parts Division of manufacturers, wherever the MRP had been affixed on the packages as per the instructions of the manufacturers, the duty has been paid on the value under Section 4 A, that sofar as the clearances to Automobile dealers are concerned, the same being in boxes of 100 pieces each are clearances in wholesale packages and in respect of these clearances, there was no requirement to affix the declaration containing MRP and other particulars as per the provisions of SWM Rules and hence, the provisions of Section 4 A would not be attracted, that as is clear from para 14.3 of the impugned order-in-original, the Commissioner has treated the wholesale packages in which the goods were cleared to wholesale dealers as multi-piece packages meant for retail sale and on this basis, has held that the Appellant in terms of provisions of Rue 17(1) of SWM Rules were required to affix the declaration regarding MRP on these packages, that this finding of the Commissioner is totally incorrect, as the concept of multi-piece packages in SWM Rules was delete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in terms of the provisions of SWM rules, there is requirement to declare the MRP on the boxes in which the goods were cleared by the appellant to their wholesale dealers and spare parts division of the Automobile manufacturers and that in view of this, this is not a case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The appellants manufacture fasteners (nuts and bolts and screws) and it has not been disputed by them that the same are meant primarily for being used as components of automobiles. As mentioned above, the above clearances of the appellants are of three categories - (a) clearances to original equipment manufacturers (Automobile manufacturers) for being used in manufacture of automobile, (b) clearance to spare parts of Division of Automobile manufacturers for being sold by automobile manufacturers as spare parts and (c) clearances to the wholesale dealers in boxes of 100 pieces each. There is no dispute about the fact that the goods are notified for assessment of duty on the value determined under Section 4A under Notification No. 11/06-C.E. (N.T.) issued un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yable on the value determined under the provisions of Section 4A i.e. MRP minus abatements. In respect of these clearances, the only dispute is that while according to the appellant, in all such clearances to Spare Parts Division of automobile Manufacturers where MRP had been affixed on the boxes the duty had been paid on the value determined under Section 4 A while according to the department this is not so. 8. The main dispute and bulk of the duty demand is in respect of the clearances to dealers, who have purchased the fasteners and for automobiles in bulk - in the boxes containing 100 pieces each. It is not the department's case that each individual piece of the fasteners were individually packed with the MRP affixed and these packages have been further packed in the bigger boxes. From the facts as narrated in the impugned order, it appears that the clearances to dealers are in the boxes containing 100 pieces each and each individual piece is not packed individually with the MRP affixed on them. The Commissioner's finding is that the boxes containing 100 pieces of fasteners are covered by the definition of multi pieces packages in Rule 17 of SWM Rules and these packages....