Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Hindustan Lever Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Raigad on 7 August, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO.II
APPEAL NO.C/331/03-Mum
(Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No.26/2003(JCH) dtd.25.2.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (A), Raigad )
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member(Judicial)
Honble Mr.S.K.Gaule, 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 :
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?
============================================================= M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
:
Appellants VS Commissioner of Customs, Raigad Respondent Appearance Ms. Aparna Rao, Advocate for Appellants Shri K.S.Mishra, Addl.Commr. (A.R.) for Respondent CORAM:
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member(Judicial) Mr. S.K.Gaule, Member(Technical) Date of hearing: 07/08/2013 Date of decision 07/08/2013 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein duty has been confirmed on the ground that they are required to affix MRP on the lipsticks imported by them vide Bill of Entry No.679779 dated 18.6.2001.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellants imported a consignment of lipsticks and as per the invoice the goods were 3456 pcs x 8 shade totaling 27648 pcs blue aviance slimline lipstics SPF 5 with weight of 2.2.gm/pc. It is the contention of the appellants that for the purpose of CVD on the imported goods, transaction value as per Sec.4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 should be taken as assessable value and it done on the basis of Sec. 4A of the Act as lipsticks weighing 2.2 gms a pc is not subject to the Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. Both the lower authorities did not accept the contention of the appellants and asked to make the payment of differential duty on the basis of the MRP. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before us.
3. Ld.Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that identical issue came up before this tribunal in the case of M/s. Pidilite Industries Ltd. wherein Fevistick/Gluestick or Prime Stick having weight 5 gms or 8 gms were imported and were not sold on weight basis but on number basis. In that case vide order No.A/973-986/13/CSTB/C.I dated 2.4.2013, this tribunal has held that duty is to be paid as per Sec.4 i.e. transaction value of the impugned goods and the provisions of Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 are not applicable and the appellants are not required to pay duty on the basis of MRP.
4. On the other hand, the ld.Addl.Commissioner(A.R.) for the Revenue reiterated the impugned order and submits that as the goods are imported in numbers therefore, there is no concern with the weight and Rule 34 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules 1977 provides that if the goods are sold in numbers they are required to affix MRP.
5. Heard both sides. Considering the fact that similar issue came up before this tribunal in the case of M/s. Pidilite Industries Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that although the goods are sold in numbers, they are not required to pay duty on MRP as having the weight less than 10 gms per pc. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
(Dictated in court) S.K.Gaule Member(Technical) Ashok Jindal Member(Judicial) pv 3