MONA ELECTRONICS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two issues in the present appeal are as to whether the appellants who are manufacturer of colour television sets are required to pay on maximum retail price in terms of provisions of Section 4A read with Not. No. 18/98 -C.E. (N.T.) dated 2 -6 -1998 and as to whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of inputs, when no declaration under Rule 57G was filed by them.

(2.) SHRI P.R. Biswas, learned Consultant elaborating on his argument submits that as regard the first issue is concerned, television receivers were notified as one of the goods to which the provisions of Section 4A(2) shall apply w.e.f. 2 -6 -1998, vide Not. No. 18/98 -C.E. (N.T.). Accordingly, they started paying duty under the said provisions, on their maximum retail price after availment of abatement as indicated in the said Notification. The Revenue, however, entertained a view that as the appellant had not declared the maximum retail price to them and they have not opted for payment of duty under the said Section, read with the Notifications in question, they are not entitled to pay duty under provisions of Section 4A. As such, the Assistant Commissioner after issuing a show cause notice confirmed the demand of duty against them by applying rate of Rs. 2400/ - per television. Shri Biswas submits that there is no question of opting for availment of payment of duty on maximum retail price in terms of Section 4A inasmuch as the said Section is mandatory. Sub -Section (2) of Section 4A makes it clear that where the goods specified under sub -section (1) are excisable goods and are chargeable to duty of excise with reference to value then, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 4, such value shall be deemed to be the retail sale price declared on such goods less such amount of abatement. He submits that inasmuch as the television sets are notified under Section 4A, they were to necessarily follow the said Section. As such, the Revenue is not justified in resorting to provisions of Section 4. He also clarifies that there is no dispute as regards the maximum retail price of television set on which duty has been paid by them. As regards the second point, he submits that the period is October 1988 and they had sent a declaration u/r 57G under certificate of posting on 29 -9 -1998. However, on coming to know that the said declaration was not received by the Revenue, they filed another declaration on 1 -2 -1999 in person and with a request to condone the delay in filing the declaration. A reminder was subsequently filed on 25 -2 -1999. He submits that the said representation for condonation of delay filed under Rule 57G declaration is still pending before the Assistant Commissioner. As such, denial of Modvat credit on this ground was not justified.

(3.) WE have also heard Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR for the Revenue who reiterates the reasoning of the authorities below.