TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1723
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the goods leviable to CVD attracts Retail Sale Price (RSP) based assessment under Section 4A of the CEA, 1944 instead of transaction value as claimed by the appellant since the said items are included in the Sl. No. 108 of the Notification No. 49/2008-CE (NT) dated 24.12.2008. These goods are described by the appellant as Truck Refrigeration Unit specifically packed for the exclusive use of transport industry as a raw material or for the purpose of servicing transport industry. On adjudication, the transaction value was rejected and the assessable value for CVD was redetermined as per Section 4A of CEA, 1944 on Maximum Retail Price (MRP) basis confirming differential duty of Rs. 12,55,346/-. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (A) who in turn rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the CVD applicable to the imported goods have been reassessed on the basis of MRP holding that the appellants are neither an industrial consumer nor an institutional consumer as defined under Rule 2(bb) and Rule 2(bc) of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the imported goods are meant for industrial consumers. He submits that this issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Hi-Tech Computers vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru vide Final Order No. 20729 - 20731/2024 dated 29.04.2024 wherein this Tribunal following the earlier judgment of this Tribunal in Starlite Components Ltd. vs. CCE, Nashik: 2012 (286) ELT 43 held that goods sold solely to industrial consumers are not liable to be assessed under MRP based assessment. 3.3 Further, the learned advocate submitted that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Ewac Alloys Ltd. Vs. UOI [2012(275) ELT 193 (Kar.)], which has been followed by the later in the case of CCE, Bangalore-III Vs. Lotus Power Gears Ltd. [2017(346) ELT 347 (Kar.)]. Also, they placed reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Remi Sales and Engineering Ltd. Vs. CC, Mumbai [2019(365) ELT 142 (Tri. Mum.)] and Mahle Engine Components India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi [2020(374) ELT 425 (Tri. Del.)]. Further, he has submitted that in view of the amendment later brought to the provisions of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....retail to consumers at the direction of the OEMs. The Revenue has alleged that since the appellants are not manufacturers but traders, the imported DVD players and flip-down LCD monitors are liable to be assessed under MRP based assessment, whereas the claim of the appellant is that since the goods are imported and cleared to industrial consumers i.e. OEMs in bulk, MRP based assessment is not applicable to them. We find that this issue has been addressed by this Tribunal in the case of Starlite Components Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nashik [2012(286) ELT 43 (Tri. Mum.)] on more or less similar facts. The assessee in that case imported Energy Efficient Lighting fixtures (portable lamps working on dry battery) Torch of various models. As the said goods were notified under the provisions of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, the assessee was directed to declare the RSP on the imported goods and accordingly on the insistence of the Department; the RSP was declared ranging from Rs. 66 to 170 per piece. On enquiry by the Department, it was found that the actual RSP on these products were Rs. 135 to Rs. 375 per piece being sold by M/s. Bajaj Electrical Ltd. in the market....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the differential duty inasmuch as there was no requirement of declaring MRP. As a result, the confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 are also not justified. Consequently, the question of payment of redemption fine would not arise and also no penal consequence would follow under Section 112(a) ibid. 8. Similar view was subsequently held in the case of Remi Sales & Engg. Ltd., wherein the Tribunal has held as under:- "3. We have perused the facts of the case and relevant proviso. The Appellant has challenged the assessment on the ground that the goods can be assessed on RSP only when they are specified in notification issued under Sections 4A(1); and (2) declaration of retail sale price on packages under the Standards of Weight & Measures Act, 1976 or under other law for the time being in force is mandatory which is only in case of retail sale. Considering the nature and use of goods it cannot be said that the same are intended for retail sale. Therefore the goods has to be assessed on transaction value. It was submitted by them, sale is made to institution i.e. hospitals, blood banks, Research institute, etc. are not covered und....