2017 (8) TMI 216

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hes / depots. The appellants were discharging the duty liability on the washing machines in respect to MRP with abatement @ 40% as provided under section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with relevant Notification. On verification of the accounts, for the period 12.5.2000, it was seen that the appellant had adopted different prices for different branches / areas where the washing machines are to be sold and thus appellants had discharged duty liability on different assessable value. That washing machines cleared to one area had subsequently stock transferred to another area on inter branch transfer. The appellants had initially discharged the duty liability on the lower MRP and when the goods were cleared to a particular area, had failed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ket demand, non-moving of a particular model in a particular region etc. such inter branch transfers were made both from higher MRP region to lower MRP region and vice-versa. The department alleges that when the washing machines are transferred from one depot to another and wherever the MRP at the recipient depot is higher than the MRP at which the washing machine was cleared originally, then appellant has to pay differential excise duty. He stressed on the point that the appellant have not altered with the MRP and there was only inter branch transfer of the washing machines/goods. There is no allegation in the show cause notice that the appellant has altered with the MRP. He adverted to the show cause notice as well as the impugned order a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....so for the reason that the Explanation 2(b) brought forth to sub-clause (4) of Section 4A having come into effect on 14.5.2003 only, the demand for the period 12.5.2000 to 13.5.2003 is not sustainable legally or factually. 3. The learned AR Shri B. Balamurugan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that during the disputed period, the appellants were moving the goods from one depot to another and in such inter branch transfer, they were clearing the goods at a lower MRP, even though for that particular region, a higher MRP was applicable. 4. We have heard the submissions made by both sides. 5. The affixation of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) is mandated on specified commodities sold in packaged form under the Stand....