TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 by treating the sales M/s. Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited (herein after referred to as (APSHCL) as retail sale. The assessee cleared the cement, manufactured and specially packaged for APSHCL, clearly embossing the name of the consignor on the bags and supplied at the contracted/agreed prices as per the terms and conditions of the contract. The contacted sale price has also been embossed on cement packages as Retail Sale Price (RSP), which was different from the prevailing RSP of the said products for the given area and time. The Department took the view that affixing the RSP on the bags was not correct as the sale to APSHCL was not a retail sale as defined under rule 2(q) of the Standards of W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icating less than Rs. 190/- per 50 Kg bag. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has preferred this appeal. 6. During the hearing, Learned AR on behalf of the Department made the following main submissions: (i) Sales effected by the assessee to APSHCL are not covered under SWM (PC) Rules, 1977 and hence they were not required to print the RSP on the cement bags in as much as their sales are not retail sales and therefore their goods are covered under SI. No. 1C of Notification No. 4/2006-CE, dated 01.03.2006 as amended attracting the duties specified therein. Further, printing of the agreed price as RSP on the cement packages is not the correct RSP as the same was lower than the prevailing RSP for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r in Civil Appeal No. 1901-1905/2011. It is however seen that in the present case the respondent had approached the Legal Metrology Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, who were the competent authority for clarifying whether any goods concerned are required to be sold under MRP. It is seen that in response to their letter dated 02.01.2008, The Controller, Legal Metrology, Hyderabad has replied as follows: In the reference afore cited, you have expressed considered view that supplies made to the A.P. State Housing Corporation are not governed by any exemption under Rule 2A of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. In this connection, it is to inform that while declaring retail sale ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration on cement packages should be in the manner as "Maximum Retail Price........inclusive of all taxes". In the circumstances, the fact of the Hon'ble Apex Supreme Court admitting the review petition filed by department and also recalling its order in earlier civil appeal filed by the department in the M/s Sagar Cements case, will not, in my opinion, affect the present appeal. Once the Legal Metrology authorities have clarified and informed the appellants that supplies made by them even to institutional buyers are not excluded from the declaration of MRP under the Packaged Commodities Rules, the appellant has to necessarily fall in line and declare MRP on the cement packages held by them and in consequence, the goods will necessarily attr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gal Metrology, Maharashtra has clarified that according to Rule 3 of Packaged Commodities Rules, 2011 the provision regarding mandatory declaration on retail packages are not applicable to the packages meant and marked as industrial/institutional consumers. Similarly, the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology, Government of Karnataka, vide letter dated 24-2-2012 has clarified that institutional/industrial package does not bear the MRP marking but will have marking as meant for industrial/institutional consumer and not meant for retail sale. Similarly, Controller of Legal Metrology, Government of Gujarat has clarified that the only packages which bear clear markings "meant for industrial consumer or meant for institutional consumer" are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 4A is not the nature of sale but such sale should be in a package and there should be a requirement in the SWM Act or the Rules made thereunder for displaying MRP on such packages. 5.2 In the present case, the above stipulations are completely satisfied. This decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also followed by the Tribunal in the case of Sagar Cements Ltd. (supra) where there was a bulk supply of cements in retail packages on which MRP was declared. This Tribunal held that such bulk supply would also come under the purview of Section 4A and the duty liability has to be discharged under the said provision. The said decision was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In ITEL Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cent....