Amit Talwar Vs CCE, Delhi-I (CESTAT Delhi)
The goods imported and traded by TAPL as well as 3D during the impugned period are covered under Third Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Such goods are covered by Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which reads as follows:
“(f) “manufacture” includes any process-
(i) ……. ……. …….
(ii) ……. ……. …….
(iii) which in relation to the goods specified in the Third Schedule, involves packing or repacking of such goods in a unit container or labelling or re-labelling of containers including the declaration or alteration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer;”
The investigation carried out by the Department concluded that both TAPL as well as 3D have-
(i) Imported various goods bearing their brand name in which the MRP was not marked. Such goods, after importation were affixed with MRP sticker and sold in the local market;
(ii) Some consignments were imported in which MRP stickers were already affixed but post importation new MRP stickers were affixed and goods were sold in the local market;
(iii) Goods were procured from indigenous manufacturers, the MRP was changed and such goods were also sold at the enhanced MRP;
It is the allegation of Revenue that the activity of changing the MRP/ affixing MRP stickers in their godown will fall within the deeming provision in Section 2(f) (iii) and consequently, Central Excise duty is required to be discharged in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, which has not been done by the appellant. Accordingly, after issue of show cause notice, demand of Central Excise duty stands confirmed which has been challenged in these appeals.
