2018 (7) TMI 1276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....chedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said goods are notified items under section 4A of the Central Excise Act and accordingly duty of excise is required to be paid on the basis of MRP declared on the said TV sets after deducting the permissible abatements. The percentage of abatements allowed under the Notification issued under the said Section 4A is to the extent of 30%. 2. The appellant declared the MRP on the colour TV sets to the extent of Rs. 2,321/- per set and discharged duty on the same after taking 30% abatements i.e. on Rs. 1,625/- per set in terms of provisions of section 4A of the Central Excise Act. 3. The appellant entered into a contract with M/s.Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu, Govt. of Tamil Nadu Unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... also assailed on the point of limitation. 6. The lower authorities however, did not find favour with the above contentions of the appellant and accordingly confirmed the demand along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty. Hence the present appeal. 7. We find that section 4A of the Central Excise Act was introduced with the purpose of introduction of collection of excise duty on the basis of MRP. The entire purpose of the said section was to avoid litigation about the includibiliy of various elements in the assessable value of the excisable product, as observed by the Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Gold Coin Ceramic Ltd. v. CCE [2009 (239) ELT 458]. The said section provides for payment of excise duty on the basis of MR....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of duty after the claim of 30% abatement. Admittedly the price on which the appellant have sold the TV is not more than Rs. 2,321/- i.e. the maximum retail price declared by the appellant. As such the sale price of goods being actually Rs. 1,925/- which is admittedly less than the declared MRP, would not become the assessable value of the goods by adding back the differential amount of Rs. 300/- per set in the assessable value. That would defeat the very purpose of introduction of section 4A of the Central Excise Act inasmuch as the same would amount to assessments under section 4 of the Act, which is not permissible. As such we find no merits in the Revenue's stand. 9. Though we have held in favour of the appellant on merits, but we als....