Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cantronics Office Equipment P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Acc & Import), ... on 17 November, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No. C/148/09
(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. 264/Mumbai III/2008 dated 30.12.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Airport, Mumbai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
Cantronics Office Equipment P. Ltd.
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (ACC & Import), Mumbai
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri N.D. George, Advocate for the appellant Shri V.K. Singh, Addl. Commr (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 17.11.2011 Date of decision : 17.11.2011 O R D E R No:..
Per: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant imported Barcode Printers P400. The dispute arises for purpose of calculating the additional duty of customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The retail price of such printers should be taken as basis. Proviso to sub-section 3(2) specifies two conditions for adopting the retail price as the basis:
a) It must be required under the Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 or the Standards of Weights and Measures (PC) Rules, 1977 to declare on the package of the imported article its retail sale price.
b) The article must have been notified under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for such valuation based on retail price.
2. The imported article is notified under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is not in dispute. The only dispute in the matter is that whether it is required under Standards of Weights and Measures (PC) Rules to declare MRP on the article or not. Therefore this appeal is before us.
3. The ld. Advocate for the appellant appeared and submitted that the impugned goods are not imported for retail sale and same has been procured for industrial use. To support his contention he relied on the decision of Manoj Gupta vs. State of Karnataka 2011 (271) ELT 39 (Kar).
4. After hearing the ld. Advocate, we find that the short issue involved in the matter is whether the impugned goods are required to declare MRP with article as per Standards of Weights and Measures (PC) Rules, 1977.
5. To decide whether the appellant are required to affix MRP we have to examine the Standards of Weights and Measures (PC) Rules, 1977 and as per the said Rules, Rule 2A exempts package commodity meant for industrial consumer or institutional consumer from application of these rules. The institutional consumer has been explained i.e. who buy packaged commodities directly from the manufacturer or packer; and who uses the commodities for service industry like transportation or hotel or any other similar service industry.
6. From perusal of the records and literature placed before us, we find that the Barcode printers are made for retail sale and are not to be used for service like transportation, hotel, or any other similar service industry. Therefore, we hold that the said goods are required to be fixed MRP on them as per the Standards of Weights and Measures (PC) Rules, 1977. The case law relied upon by the ld. Advocate in the case of Manoj Gupta is not relevant to the facts of this case. The issue has already been dealt by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order in para 3.4, which is reproduced below:
3.4 As regards merits of the present case, on its own, let me examine whether sale of such printers is exempted from application of Chapter III of the SWM(PC) Rules. The gist of the relevant Rule 2A is already reproduced above in para #3.1. What is required to examine is whether the shopping malls which are typical buyers of the imported printers) can be regarded as institutional consumers. For one, the appellant is not a manufacturer. Whether the appellant can be regarded as a packer is not at all clear from the statement of facts or from the grounds of appeal because the word packer is statutorily define in clause (k) of SWM (PC) Rule 2. Secondly, whether shopping malls, stockists, etc. who are main customers of the appellant, can be covered in the Explanation to the Rule 2A is also doubtful because of the word similar used in it. It is settled that every word used in a statute has to be given a meaning. Therefore I interpret the word similar to mean service industry like or akin to transporter or hotel, which find mention by name in the Explanation. Shopping malls, or stockists are not similar to a transporter or a hotel. I therefore hold that the imported printers are not and hence it required under rule 2A or under the rule 34 of the SWM (PC) Rules and hence it is required under the Standards of Weights and Measures (PC) Rules, 1977 to declare on the package of the imported article its retail sale price.
7. In view of the above observations, we hold that the impugned goods are liable to value as per provisions of Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Same is upheld. Appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
(Operative part pronounced in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) SR 5