LexCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR -II versus M/S MIRAJ PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 117 : 2024 INSC 470 Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur -II v. M/s Miraj Products Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal Nos. 143-147 of 2010) 08 July 2024 [Abhay S. Oka* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the commodity sold by the respondent-assessee will attract Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Headnotes† Central Excise Act, 1944 – s.4A – Valuation of excisable goods with reference to retail sale price – When not applicable – Standards of Weight & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 – rr.2 (q), (g), (x)(iii), 34 – HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene Bag) bags containing 100 poly packs containing 33 plus one smaller pack of chewing tobacco sold by the respondent, if was meant for retail sale and therefore be treated as a group package or it was a wholesale package not meant for retail sale: Held: In view of sub-section (1) of s.4A of the Excise Act, the question is whether there was any requirement in the 1977 Rules to declare the retail sale price of the commodity on the package – What is relevant is whether the package is of such nature that attracts any of the provisions of the 1977 Rules, which mandatorily require the mention of retail price on the package – In case of a package that does not attract provisions of the 1977 Rules regarding mentioning the retail price, even if the retail price is mentioned on the package, that itself will not attract sub-section (1) of s.4A – However, on facts, there is no requirement to deal with the issue of whether a poly pack containing 33 plus one small package was intended for retail sale as the specific case made out by the respondent in reply to the show cause notices that it was selling HDPE bags containing 100 poly packs containing 33 plus one smaller pack was not rejected by the Commissioner – Therefore, the respondent was selling HDPE bags containing 100 poly packs each to the distributors and dealers – The 1977 Rules do not require the display of price on such HDPE bags – Even * Author 118 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports assuming that 100 poly packs were retail packages, HDPE bags would be covered by the definition of ‘wholesale package’ as defined in clause (iii) of r.2(x) of the 1977 Rules – Thus, the HDPE bags are not group packages within the meaning of r.2(g) – s.4A(1) of the Excise Act was not applicable to the goods subject matter of the show cause notices – Impugned judgment of the Tribunal not interfered with. [Paras 15-18] Case Law Cited M/s.Varnica Herbs v. Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, 2004 (163) ELT 160 (Madras); Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi v. Kraftech Products Inc. [2008] 5 SCR 251 : (2008) 12 SCC 321 – referred to. List of Acts Central Excise Act, 1944; Standards of Weight & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977. List of Keywords Excisable goods; Excise duty; Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; Show cause notices; Retail Sale; Retail sale price; Chewing tobacco; Poly packs; HDPE bags; Retail packages, Group packages; Wholesale package; MRP on poly packs; Retail sale of the poly packs; Display of price; Retail dealers; Retail price of the goods; Packages intended for retail sale; Declaration of retail sale price of the commodity on package. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 143-147 of 2010 From the Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2008 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Final Order Nos.861-865 of 2008 in Appeal Nos. E/3675, 3313/2005 – Ex. [DB] & 245/06 & 979-980/07 Appearances for Parties Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Ms. Gunmaya S. Mann, Tarun Kumar Sobti, Shambhavi Singh, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Siddhant Kohli, Ms. Chinmayee Chandra, Ms. Aakansha Kaul, Shiv Mangal Sharma, Rupesh Kumar, Randhir Singh, Advs. for the Appellant. [2024] 7 S.C.R. 119 Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur -II v. M/s Miraj Products Pvt. Ltd. V. Lakshmikumaran, Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Ms. Neha Choudhary, Ms. Falguni Gupta, Ms. Umang Motiyani, M.P. Devanath, Punit Dutt Tyagi, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Abhay S. Oka, J. FACTUAL DETAILS 1. These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 7th November 2008 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). The issue involved, in short, is whether the goods sol
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.