TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (3) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty. 3.Some Manufacturers, instead of declaring the maximum retail price applicable to the particular area/State, on the package, declare several maximum retail prices that may be applicable to different Regions/States, by printing/embossing them on the packages. 4.The Department is of the view that excise duty is leviable not on the basis of the respective maximum retail price printed on the packages with reference to the region where it is sold, but on the basis of the highest of the MRPs, that are printed by the appellant on the packages meant for different areas. In other words, if the appellant prints different MRPs on packages for sale in different regions in the country (that is say Rs. 55/- for Karnataka, Rs. 60/-, for Maharashtra, Rs. 70/- for Delhi and Rs. 80/- for Mizoram) the Department wants the appellant to pay excise duty on all the goods of that type manufactured by it, with reference as the maximum of such retail prices (that is on a MRP of Rs. 80/-). The second respondent therefore issued a Notice dated 12-7-1999 to the appellant informing the appellant that Central Board of Excise & Customs ('CBEC' for short) had issued a circular dated 8-6-1999 containing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cond respondent. 7.The learned Single Judge who heard the said petition dismissed the petition by order dated 20-7-1999. He held that having regard to Explanation 2 to Section 4A, if there are more than one retail price for any excisable goods, the maximum of such retail price has to be taken to be retail price and the said Explanation 2 is wide enough to cover different packages having different maximum retail prices declared on the package as the maximum of such retail prices. 8.Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal. The appellant has urged the following grounds : (a) Even though Explanation 2 envisages payment of excise duty on the maximum retail price declared on a package, the second note to the declaration has made it compulsory for the assessee to pay excise duty based on the maximum out of all the retail prices applicable to different regions/States even though different MRPs may not have been declared on the packages. Therefore, insistence of payment of excise duty on the basis of maximum of all retail prices even if all the rates are not declared on a package is contrary to the provisions of Section 4A. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st because the assessee has made sales in distant States at higher M.R.Ps. As a result of this, free flow of trade and commerce throughout the country is impeded. Therefore, the said note is violative of Article 301 of the Constitution of India. 9.On the other hand, the department contends that while sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) refer to retail sale price declared on the package. Explanation 2 does not refer to declaration on the package but merely refers to "retail sale price declared". The department therefore contends that the retail sale price referred to in Explanation 2 is not the retail price declared on the package but the retail price declared in the declaration under Rule 173C(2A). The department also contends that if different Retail Sale Prices are applicable to different Regions/States, the Manufacturer is required to declare under Rule 173C(2A), only the highest of the several retail sale prices and that price shall alone be deemed to the retail sale price for purpose of Section 4A, in respect of goods sold in all regions. We may mention that the dispute relates only to the period from 1-8-1998 to 11-5-2000 as Explanation 2 has been amended with effect from 12-5-2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that where the goods specified in sub-section (1) are excisable goods and are chargeable to duty with reference to value, then said value shall be deemed to be the retail sale price declared on such goods (less amount of abatement). If sub-section (2) of Sec. 4A is read with sub-section (1), there will be no doubt as to what is the basis for charging Excise Duty, as it refers to the retail sale price declared on such goods (Packages) less abatement. As the appellant declares only one retail sale price on the packages, it will be liable to pay excise duty on the respective retail sale price printed on the packages less abatement. In other words if the retail sale price of the goods to be sold in Karnataka is Rs. 55/-, the excise duty will be payable on Rs. 55/- less abatement in respect of such goods cleared for Karnataka, and if the retail sale price of the goods is Rs. 60/- in Maharashtra, excise duty will be payable on Rs. 60/- less abatement in respect of goods cleared for sale in Maharashtra, and so on. 12.But the department contends that having regard to Explanation 2 to Section 4A read with Rule 173C(2A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 if a manufacturer declares differen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sold in the area to which the retail sale price relates." The new Explanation 2 makes it clear that where different retail sale prices are declared on different packages for sale of excisable goods in different areas, each such retail price shall be a retail sale price for purpose of valuation of the excisable goods to be sold in the area to which the retail sale price relates. In fact, this is exactly the contention of the appellant. One of the recognised principles of interpretation of statutes is that if there is ambiguity in an earlier legislation, a subsequent legislation may fix the proper interpretation which is to be put upon the earlier [vide : State of Bihar v. S.K. Roy (AIR 1966 SC 1995)]. Even though the amendment to Section 4A was not with retrospective effect, the substituted Explanation 2 to Section 4A gives a clear indication as to how the earlier Explanation 2 is to be read, particularly when the amendment is not with reference to the charging provision contained in Section 4A, but only to the explanation. 15.It is no doubt true that the format of declaration prescribed under Rule 173C(2A) requires the manufacturer to declare as the "retail sale price" only t....