GILLETTE INDIA LTD. AND G.S. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in these appeals is a manufacturer of razors and razor blades in India. A part of the produce is also exported to Nepal. The present case relates to export goods.

(2.) THE appellant paid excise duty on the export consignments after assessing them to duty at export sale prices. Thus, valuation of export goods was in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Razor blades are specified under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The consignments cleared for home consumption in India were being subjected to duty passed on the MRP printed on the packets, in terms of Section 4A. Under the impugned order, excise authorities have held that the consignments exported to Nepal should also be valued in terms of Section 4A, that is based on their MRP. The present appeals challenge this finding.

(3.) THE contention of the Senior Counsel for the appellant is that Section 4A is attracted only to cases where goods are statutorily required (under the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act) to be marked with maximum retail price (MRP). It is the learned Senior Counsel's submission that export goods being outside the purview of the marking of MRP, revenue authorities were misdirected in holding that Section 4A is applicable to the valuation of export consignments. He has taken us through the provisions of the requirements under The Standards of Weights and Measures Act and the Rules and has relied in particular on Rule 30 which relates to EXPORT AND IMPORT of PACKAGED COMMODITIES. It is being pointed out that the requirement of marking price is significantly absent under this rule. Rule 31 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules provides that every export package shall comply with the laws and regulations in force in the country to which such package is intended to be exported. It is the learned Senior Counsel's contention that since no legal requirements of marking retail price in Nepal have been invoked by the revenue authorities, this rule is of no assistance to the revenue. Learned SDR has taken us extensively to the findings in the impugned order and has pointed out that the finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is in conformity with the supplementary instructions of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. In particular, reference is being made to para 4.1. We may read that para.