Allowed

Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Jammu & Kashmir

CESTAT21 Jan 2020E/1583/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal upheld its own earlier decision in a similar case, holding that goods packed in bigger boxes with MRP printed on them are intended for retail sale, thereby attracting duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders are set aside, and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief.

Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Jammu & Kashmir — Banking and Recovery | CESTAT (2020)

¶1

¶2

Appeal No.E/1583-1584/2010

¶3

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH

¶4

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I

¶5

Excise Appeal No 1583 and 1584 of 2010

¶6

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.479-480/CE/Appl/Chd-II (JK)/2010 dated 22.4.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh-II, CR Building, Plot No.19, Sector 17C, Chandigarh-160017)

¶7

Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt.Ltd Appellant

¶8

(1^st Parallel Road, Industrial Growth Centre, Samba, Jammu)

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

CCE & ST, Jammu & Kashmir Respondent

¶11

(OB-32, Rail Head Complex, Jammu-180012)

¶12

APPEARANCE:

¶13

Present for the Appellant: Shri Rakesh Punj, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri A.K.Saini, AR

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶15

FINAL ORDER NO. 60125-60126/2020

¶16

DATE OF HEARING/ DECISION: 21.01.2020

¶17

PER ASHOK JINDAL

¶18

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order.

¶19

The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of pesticides and insecticides of less than 10 gms/10 ml. The appellant’s unit is located n the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The said packages were packed in bigger boxes of 15-20 packs and on the packages the appellant is putting MRP printed and paying duty in terms of Section 4A after availing abatement of Central Excise duty. The Revenue entertained a view that the appellant is required to assess the goods under Section 4 and has availed excess refund which is illegal.

¶20

¶21

Appeal No.E/1583-1584/2010

¶22

Therefore, a show cause notice was issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. The matter was adjudicated and the impugned order was passed by confirming the demand under section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and by imposing penalty under section 11AC of the Act. Against this order, the appellant is before us.

¶23

Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is covered by the earlier decision of this Tribunal in their own case vide Final Order No.62271/2018 dated 19.03.2018.

¶24

Heard the parties and considered the submissions.

¶25

We find that the issue has been decided by this Tribunal in their

¶26

own case, wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:-

¶27

“6. The facts of the case are not in dispute that the appellant packed pouches of insecticides of less than or 10 gms/10 ml and these pouches but in bigger pack on which MRP is printed. MRP is printed on the pouches and these goods are made for retail sale and the appellant is required to affix MRP in terms of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities), Rules, 1977. These facts are not disuted. In an similar set of facts in the case of Radha Tobacco Company (supra), this Tribunal has observed as under:-

¶28

7. The consequent point for consideration is whether the multipiece packs from the factory are intended for retail sale as claimed by the appellant and whether such goods intended for retail sale are required to be printed with Maximum Retail Price under the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.

¶29

8. It is amply clear that a pre-condition for assessment under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 is the mandate to clear packaged goods with Maximum Retail Price printed on them. However, the Central Excise Act, 1944 being a taxation statute, cannot mandate the printing of Maximum Retail Price on the package cleared from the factory. That mandate must emanate from elsewhere, i.e., the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 notified under Standards of Weights & Measures Act, 1976. Assuredly, assessment under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 is a consequence of packaging and the mandated declaration.

¶30

9. The said Rules have been framed to protect consumers who are rendered unable to ascertain the nature and content of the goods

¶31

¶32

Appeal No.E/1583-1584/2010

¶33

secured by packaging. As the consumer is the beneficiary, the enforcement of this mandate is effected only at the point of retail sale Commercial consideration may require more than one intermediary between the factory of production and point of retail sale. Packaging is as much a property of the manufacturer as the produce itself. That self-interest is sufficient to enforce the prescription when the package is cleared from the factory. The intention for sale in retail is demonstrated only when the goods so packaged are deployed at the point of retail sale. The mandate under the Rule is not enforceable at any point before that. The intention is, therefore, in the mind of the producer and is evidenced by the printing of the prescribed details on the package. There can be no other test of intent.

¶34

10. It is quite possible that the retail distributor may opt to sell the individual pouches of chewing tobacco after breaking open of the polythene package. That is a commercial decision at the retail sale point, which has no bearing on the assessment at the time of clearance. That the printing of Maximum Retail Price on the multipiece pack suffices to express the intent of the producers of the goods and owner brand to market the multi-pack is apparent from the Rules.

¶35

Considering the fact that the appellant have made packages for retail sale, they are legally bound to affix MRP of the said goods. In the circumstances, the appellant is required to discharge duty in terms of Section 4A of the Act. Therefore, the appellant has correctly discharged the duty liability under section 4A of the Act.”

¶36

In these terms, we do not find merit in the impugned orders and the same are set aside. In the result, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.

¶37

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

¶38

(ASHOK JINDAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

¶39

(SANJIV SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶40

Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Jammu & Kashmir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Jammu & Kashmir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mirra Packaging (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs Hyderabad-I

Mirra Packaging (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs Hyderabad-I

Sunshine Plasmacrafts vs Commissioner of Gst&Cce(Chennai North)

Sunshine Products vs Commissioner of Gst&Cce(Chennai North)

Hasmukh Shah vs Ahmedabad-iii

Divy Rollfoam Ltd. vs Ahmedabad-iii

Mahendra Traders vs Howrah Commissionerate

Ms Hyderabad Chemicals Ltd. vs Jammu & Kashmir