2003 (9) TMI 245

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e time of removal of these instruments, the appellants discharged duty liability as arising from their valuation in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, i.e. maximum retail price affixed on the goods minus notified percentage of abatement. The impugned order holds that goods were required to be assessed to duty based on their actual sale price in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The reason for holding so is that contract sales to DOT/BSNL are not covered by Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The Order-in-Original dated 7-3-2003 states the disputes as under : "In the case of assessee's supply to the DOT/BSNL though MRP has been declared on the individual cartons, the same is not the actual maximum....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion of the appellant is that Section 4A carves out a separate basis for valuation for goods specified under that Section. According to the appellant this is clear from the wording of the Section - "notwithstanding anything contained in Section 4, such value of specified goods shall be deemed to be the retail sale price declared on such goods less such amount of abatement". The appellant has pointed out that telephone instruments are "specified goods" under Section 4A and the abatement specified is 40%. It is therefore, the appellant's contention that telephone instruments satisfying the requirements under Packaged Commodities Rules i.e. affixing with retail sale price, should be valued in terms of Section 4A and not at the wholesale pri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that these instruments were not for retail sale to consumers. He submitted that to such a case, the provisions of Packaged Commodities Rules and Section 4A have no application. 6. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both sides. The appellant manufactures telecom instruments and sells those instruments to several parties including DOT/BSNL. Telecom instruments are covered by the provisions of Packaged Commodities Rules. A major requirement under this Rule is that maximum retail price should be affixed on the goods in question. There is no dispute that the telecom instruments involved in the present dispute were cleared in terms of Packaged Commodities Rules. It is also specifically noted that "MRP has....