TITAN INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from OIO No. 3/05 dated 31.3.05 by which the Commissioner has ordered the appellants to deposit an amount indicated in the order said to have been collected by the appellants representing the same as duty of excise in terms of Section 11D(3) of Central Excise Act. The Commissioner has also taken the view that the watches cleared by them by declaring the MRP is covered by Section 4A(4) of the Central Excise Act. It is the contention of the appellants that the Hon'ble High Court of AP in their own case (WP No. 14473/97) has held that the product in question i.e. watches are not falling under the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976. Hence, the finding recorded by the Commissioner that the said items are to be assessed under Section 4A of the Act is required to be set aside. It is also submitted that they have not collected extra duty on the revised price and question of depositing the same under Section 11D of the Act does not arise. Although they admit that there was increase in the prices but in the invoice they have not indicated that they have collected excess duty on the said increase and hence in such circumstances, Section 11D is not applicable. They rely on the ratio of the following judgments.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel prayed for allowing the appeal. He also pointed out to the stay order No. 458/06 dated 11.5.06 which has considered all the aspects and granted full waiver. The stay order also notes that the correct course of action for the revenue was to have proceeded to recover short levy in terms of Section 11A of Central Excise Act for having collected higher price by revision of prices.

(3.) LEARNED JCDR reiterated the view expressed by the Commissioner in the impugner order.