MRF Limited Vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that tyres, tubes and flaps secured by plastic carry straps are not “placed in a package” within the meaning of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Hence, provisions of section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 inapplicable.
Facts- The present appeal is directed against Order-in- Original dated 31.05.2023 whereby the learned Commissioner has disallowed valuation adopted under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in respect of certain tyres, tubes and flaps cleared to the replacement market and has held that such goods are liable to valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner has consequently confirmed a demand of differential duty amounting to ₹221,31,60,075/- for the period 01.03.2012 to 30.06.2017 along with interest under Section 11AA and penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Conclusion- Held that tyres, tubes and flaps secured by plastic carry straps are not “placed in a package” within the meaning of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Consequently, there is no statutory requirement under the Legal Metrology Act or the Packaged Commodities Rules to declare retail sale price on such strapped goods. The cumulative conditions laid down in Jayanti Food Processing are not satisfied. Section 4A is therefore inapplicable. The impugned goods are correctly assessable under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
