2026-VIL-156-CESTAT-CHE-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Tax - Rejection of MRP assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Appellants are manufacturers of table-top wet grinders who have cleared the goods by adopting the valuation mechanism under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 after availing 35% abatement on the MRP - Revenue rejected the MRP assessment and assessed the goods under Section 4 by including the value of the 35% abatement - Whether the rejection of MRP assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is justified – HELD - The issue involved in these appeals is no more res integra and has been settled by this very Bench in the cases of PG Electoplast Ltd. vs. CCE & ST Noida, Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd. & LLM Appliances Ltd. vs. CCE Chennai, and Ponmani Industries vs. CGST & Central Excise, Coimbatore. In the case of Ponmani Industries, the Tribunal had set aside the demand raised under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, holding that the goods were correctly assessed under Section 4A. In the absence of any decision to the contrary, there is no reason to deviate from the above rulings – Further, the Department's claim that the packages did not bear any RSP and did not carry the appellant's brand name and hence were to be valued under Section 4 of the CEA 1944 is not tenable, as the act of omission alone will not take the goods outside the purview of valuation under Section 4A - The rejection of MRP assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not justified. The impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page