Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Pooja Hardware Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ... on 6 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Appeal No. C/86136/13 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 788 (Gr.IV)2012/JNCH/IMP-653 dated 31.12.2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai II.) For approval and signature: Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, 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 : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
========================================================== Pooja Hardware Pvt Ltd Appellant (Represented by: Mr. V.N. Ansurkar, Advocate) Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva Respondent (Represented by: Mr. D. Nagvenkar, Additional Commissioner (AR) ) CORAM:
Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 06.03.2014 Date of Decision: 06.03.2014 ORDER NO..
Per: S.S. Kang
1. Appellant filed the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of Aluminium Profiles and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 29/2010-Cus dated 27.02.2010. The goods were assessed to duty by denying the benefit of the Notification. Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is dismissed.
3. The contention of the appellant is that Notification provides exemption from payment of SAD to all pre-packaged goods intended for retail sale in relation to which it is required under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 or the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force, to declare on the package thereof the retail sale price of such article. The contention is that the goods in pre-packaged condition as per the Examination Report and are for retail sale. Therefore the appellants are entitled for the benefit of the Notification. All the conditions of the Notification are fulfilled such as intended for retail sale, MRP on the package as required under the Standard of Weights and Measures Act. The imported goods are sold by the appellant in the retail market in the same condition without any alteration therefore the benefit of the Notification was wrongly denied.
4. The Revenue relied upon the finding of the lower authority and submitted that in Bills of Entry the goods in question were declared as Aluminium Profiles, hardware for furniture fittings. Therefore it cannot be considered as the same for retail sales. These are sold to the furniture manufacturers who further used the same in the manufacture of furniture items. Revenue also relied upon the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 now Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The contention is that the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 is not applicable for the commodity for industrial consumers.
5. In the present case the goods in question are used for manufacture of furniture therefore the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of the Notification.
6. We find that the dispute in this appeal is in respect of the benefit of Notification No. 29/2010-Cus dated 27.2.2010 which provides all pre-packaged goods intended for retail sale in relation to which it is required under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 or the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force, to declare on the package thereof the retail sale price of such article.
7. The condition of the Notification is that the goods should be in pre-packaged condition intended for retail sale. The Notification further provides that the retail sale price be fixed as required under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (now Legal Metrology Act, 2009) or the rules made thereunder.
8. In the Bills of Entry the appellant declared the goods as Aluminium Profile, hardware for furniture fittings. The goods in question are further used by the furniture manufacturer. We find as per the provisions of Legal Metrology Act and the Rules 2011 the provisions applicable to package intended for retail sale are not applicable in respect of packaged commodity meant for industrial consumers. The Legal Metrology Act further provides that retail sale is in relation to commodity means the sale, distribution or delivery of such commodity through retails shops or firms for same by a group of individual or another consumers. In the present case though the goods are pre-packed condition but it is not for retail sale as evident from the declaration filed in the Bills of Entry, the goods in question, are for manufacture of furniture. The buyers further use the item in question for manufacture of furniture and the provisions for packaged items intended for sale are not applicable in respect of packaged commodities meant for industrial consumers.
9. In view of the above we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.
(Pronounced in Court on __03.2014.) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President rk 4