TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 488
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sugar confectionary of various types such as soft chocolates, candies and other confectionary items; they have their own sales outlets operated as 'Candy Bar' at Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, Bangalore, Cochin, Ludhiana and Jaipur operated by their own sister concern viz M/sToras Confectionary India Pvt Ltd. or by their exclusive franchisees; different types of candies were kept in the Tops and Bins in loose form for display and consumers can themselves pick up and mix various candies and then the same were sold to the consumers in the loose form on the basis of weight. 2.1. The appellant had imported confectionary items, during July' 2003 and October' 2004, through JNPT and filed Bills of Entries; officers of DRI gathered information that the appellant was engaged in misdeclaration of retail sale price (RSP/MRP) of imported items for the purpose of calculation of Countervailing Duty (CVD) in terms of the proviso to Section 3 (2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Notification No. 13/2002-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2002 as amended; accordingly, searches were conducted at the office and godown premises of the appellant; various confectionary items were seized and statements of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ultimate consumers. This fact has also been acknowledged in the impugned order at paragraph 19.7. However, the learned adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand on the ground that the impugned goods were imported in packaged form for retail sale attracted the provisions of Section 4A of the Act, 1944 read with the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (for short, referred to as the "SWM Act") and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (for short, the "SWM Rules"). 7. Valuation of excisable goods with reference to retail sale price is contained in Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said statutory provisions mandate that in case of sale of the excisable goods in packaged form, where the packages are required to be mentioned with the price thereof under the SWM Act, SWM Rules or any other law, then the valuation would be determined on the basis of the retail sale price of such goods declared in the packages. Various expressions namely, 'retail dealer', 'retail package', 'retail sale', 'retail sale price' etc. have been defined in Rule 2 of the SWM Rules, 1977. The phrase 's....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed to supply the ice-cream in four litres pack to the Catering Industry or as the case may be hotels, the hotel used to sell the said ice-cream in scoops. The assessee used to specifically display on the said packs that "the pack was not meant for retail sale". The ice-cream contained in the said pack of four litres used to be sold in unpacked form by the hotel to which the said ice-cream used to be supplied. The contention of the assessee, therefore, was that since the pack which could be described as the bulk pack of four litres, was not meant to be sold in retail, it was bound to be treated as a wholesale transaction and as such the assessee was not required under SWM Act and the Rules made thereunder to print the Maximum Retail Price (hereinafter referred to as "MRP") which was a pre-condition for application of Section 4A of the Act for the purposes of valuation and assessment. The further contention of the assessee is that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Rule 34 of the SWM (PC) Rules. This stand was not accepted by the Assessing Authority or the Appellate Authority who held that the valuation would have to be under Section 4A and not under Section 4 of the Act (p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....package is to be sold to the consumer directly as a package. That is not a case here as the 4 litre pack is not meant to be sold to the consumer directly. We would have to essentially go through to the definition of "retail package" and one look at Rule 2(p) would show that in order to be covered under that definition such package must have been intended for "retail sale" for consumption by an individual or a group of individuals. In our view these two definitions would have to be read together to properly understand the scope thereof. In order that the package should be properly described as a "retail package", the sale has to be through the "retail sale" for consumption by an individual or a group of individuals. In the present case, admittedly, the sale of the package was only to the hotel. It may be that the hotel may ultimately sell the commodity therein, i.e., the ice-cream (not the package) to the individuals or the group of individuals. This was not a sale in favour of an individual or group of individuals. We would have to understand the scope of the term "consumer" used in Rule 2(o) to be the individual or group of individuals who consume the commodity. It is undoubtedly ....