Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and Ors.,
As regards offer of gifts made by the appellant, it was stated that numberwithstanding free gifts offered by the appellant to the buyers on the sale of TV sets, the sale price charged from the buyers will number cease to be the sole companysideration for such sale and, therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the findings of the Commissioner that it was mandatory for the appellant to print the maximum retail price on the package at time of clearance from the factory as per the requirement of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and it was the sole companysideration for sale.
They also companytended that the printed retail sale price was the sole companysideration as they had launched an exchange scheme that the goods were sold in the market with the printed sale price in packed companydition that central excise duty was number leviable at ad valorem basis 18 on all different models of television sets manufactured by them.
As regards the companytention put forth by the appellant that the appellant were of bona fide belief that their case was number companyered by the expression the retail sale price being the sole companysideration for such sale and the price had number been printed at the time of clearing the goods and they had indicated so in their letter to the companycerned authorities, the Tribunal took numbere of the fact that the appellant should have printed the maximum retail price on the packages before clearing the goods from their factory that in order to bye pass the rigors of the legal provisions relating to the maximum retail price based payment of duty, they postponed the printing of maximum retail price before clearance from the factory premises to the depots that this was done with the sole intention to avoid payment of duty at the appropriate rate applicable to their goods that, therefore, there was hardly any circumstance for the appellant to raise the plea of bona fide belief.
The Commissioner ultimately gave a finding that the goods in question had been removed from the place of manufacture without printing the retail sale price as it was mandatory for them to print the price once the goods are cleared in packed companydition as per requirement of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976.
It was admitted that it was only stock transfer to the depots of the appellant from the factory gate and retail price was printed at their depots.
The appellant companytended that stock transfer is number sale of goods in their case and actual sale of goods took place from their depots and before putting the goods in question for sale in the market they had been printing retail sale price on their goods and when the goods were sold these were having printed retail sale price.
A show cause numberice was issued to the appellant by the Commissioner of Central Excise demanding duty of Rs.
The appellant companyplied with the demand under protest without prejudice to their companytentions and filed a reply to the show cause numberice companytesting the various points raised therein.
These companytentions were rejected by the Commissioner.
RAJENDRA BABU, CJI.
On appeal to the Customs, Excise and gold Control Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner, it was held that companyour T.V. is an item in relation to the sale of which the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act and Rules made therein to declare the retail sale price on their packages would be attracted and that under Section 4 A 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 excise duty is liable to be paid at the applicable rate with reference to the retail sale price after effecting the abatement from the retail sale price as specified in the said provision and, therefore, the Tribunal held that the CTVs are subject to duty 18 ad valorem.
