PG ELECTROPLAST LTD. Vs. C.C.E.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to the filing of this appeal and stay application are, in brief as under: -

(2.) HEARD both the sides.

(3.) SH . Amit Jain, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, pleaded that during the period of dispute, the color television sets were notified under section 4A of the Central Excise Act.,1944 and accordingly in respect of CTVs cleared to M/s.ELCOT, if MRP was required to be declared in terms of the provisions of the SWM Rules on the CTV's packages, the duty was required to be paid on the assessable value determined under section 4A i.e. Maximum Retail Price (MRP) minus abatement, that in this regard, MRP (per unit price) of CTVs supplied to M/s. ELCOT had been declared on the packages of CTVs, that M/s. ELCOT are neither an 'Industrial Consumer' nor an 'Institutional Consumer' in terms of definitions of these terms as given in Rule 2A(b) of the SWM Rules, that, therefore, the duty has been correctly paid on the CTVs on the basis of the value to determined under section 4A, that the Department's contention is that M/s. ELCOT, Tamil Nadu who had purchased these color televisions sets on behalf of the Govt. of Tamil Nadu for free distribution among the poorer sec* -tion of the population, are 'Institutional Consumer', is not correct, as they have not purchased CTV sets for use in any service industry, that they cannot treated as 'Industrial Consumer' as the CTV sets were not meant for use in their factory for production etc. but were meant for free distribution, that the Commissioner's finding that M/s. ELCOT are an 'Institutional Consumer', as they have received CTVs for free distribution on behalf of Govt. of Tamil Nadu, is not correct, as the 'service' referred to in the definition of 'Institutional Consumer' is the service industry like transportation including airways, railways or any other similar service industry and distributing TV sets among the poorer section of the population, on behalf of the Govt. of Tamil Nadu cannot be treated the 'service' referred to the definition of 'Institutional Consumer', that in view of this, the Commissioner's finding that M/s.ELCOT is an 'Institutional Consumer' and hence in respect of the sales of the CTVs by the appellant for M/s.ELCOT, there was no requirement to declare MRP is incorrect and that in view of the above, the impugned order is not sustainable.