AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adopted for such assessment. 2. With the transition to assessment of specified goods on marked 'retail selling price' by incorporating section 4A in Central Excise Act, 1944, corresponding incorporation of 'Provided that in case of an article imported into India,- (a) in relation to which it is required, under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 or the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force, to declare on the package thereof the retail sale price of such article; and (b) where the like article produced or manufactured in India, or in case where such like article is not so produced or manufactured, then, the class or description of articles to which the imported article belongs, is the goods specified by notification in the Official Gazette under subsection (1) of section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the value of the imported article shall be deemed to be the retail sale price declared on the imported article less such amount of abatement, if any, from such retail sale price as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Ga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er. We fine that though the provisions of sub- section (4) of Section 4A was brought into statute from 14-5- 2003, how to redetermine the RSP in the case of misdeclared RSP was not "prescribed" by the Central Government till the issuance of Notification No. 13/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3- 2008. This would effectively mean that the Legislature in its wisdom has considered a situation wherein the RSP which is declared could be wrong RSP, thought of remedying the situation by inserting the provision of sub-section (4) in Section 4A, but had not prescribed the rules how the redetermination has to be done till 1-3-2008. It can be seen from the definition of the word "prescribed" as enshrined in Section 2(g) of the Act (as reproduced hereinabove) that it is very clearly stated that it can be done only by the rules made under this Act. Closer perusal of Notification No. 13/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2008 indicated that the said notification was issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 37 read with sub-section (4) of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules. It can be seen from the above preamble to the Notifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ..................... It can be seen from the above reproduced Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, that the said section provides for determination of duty payable on excisable goods on the basis of RSP as per the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Rules made thereunder. It is undisputed that in the month of December, 2001 and January, 2002, the appellants filed monthly returns indicating the assessable value after availing the abatement in accordance to the notification issued under the said section i.e. 65% of the MRP. There is also no dispute that the MRP which was declared on the goods cleared during the relevant period was either obliterated or scored out. It can be seen from the above reproduced Section 4A that sub-section (4) was introduced by the Legislature w.e.f. 1-3-2008. It is also to be noted that the recalculation or re-quantification of an amount received in excess of the MRP declared and collected from the customers has to be done in a prescribed manner. The provisions of MRP Valuation Rules under sub-section (4) of Section 4A was introduced w.e.f. 1-3-2008 wherein the Central Government prescribed a procedure to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Government only on 31-12-2004. If the contention of the learned SDR is to be accepted, then there was no necessity for the Government to issue Notification No. 36/2004-S.T. notifying the service receiver from non-resident having no office, to pay Service tax, as receiver. By issuing the said Notification, Central Government intended to tax the service receiver from non- resident, with effect from 1-1-2005, which, in corollary would be that no service tax is payable by this category prior to 1-1-2005. If that by so, then the amount paid by the appellant is not a tax, which the revenue cannot kept with it." xxxxx 14. We find that the above said findings recorded by the adjudicating authority are directly in conflict of the law which has been settled by the higher judicial fora as regards the confirmation of demand of the duty on an assessee on the ground of undervaluation in respect of goods covered under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. 15. In the case before us, the question of undervaluation would not arise, and assuming even if it arises, during the relevant period (in this case prior to 1-3-2008) there was no procedure under Section 4A of ....