AI Insights
The case involves M/S Venus Stampings Pvt Ltd, the appellant, contesting an excise duty assessment by the Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi IV, the respondent. The core issue was the interpretation of 'retail sale price' as defined under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, which the appellant argued should be based solely on the market selling price printed on the product's packaging. The Tribunal and subsequently the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, affirming that the 'retail sale price' must be understood in a broader context as elaborated in the Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the Tribunal's interpretation and application of the law.
Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IDT) 23904 (CESTAT-NA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
04-01-2022
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
"1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.63-66 OF 2022 [Diary No.4003 of 2019] M/S VENUS STAMPINGS PVT LTD Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI IV Respondent(s) O R D E R Heard counsel for the parties. The question involved in these appeals, as answered by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, is essentially founded on the facts of the present case. The argument of the appellant is that the mandate of Section 4A(2) obligates the taxing authority to assess the excise duty only in reference to the market selling price printed on the packing of the product. In our opinion, this submission clearly overlooks the purport of expression “retail sale price” occurring in Section 4A. The non obstante clause in Section 4A(2) will have to be construed in the context of the meaning of the expression \"retail sale price\" as elaborated in explanation (1). Taking that into account, the Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2022.01.06 17:13:33 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 conclusion reached by the Tribunal needs no interference. Hence, the civil appeals are dismissed. After this order was dictated, Mr. Alok Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently pleaded that at least the penalty imposed may be waived as the appellant had proceeded on the basis of its understanding of Section 4A. We do not wish to dilate on this submission. If the appellant so desires, he may make a representation to the authority for waiving the penalty, which application can be considered by the appropriate authority on its own merits. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ....................,J. (A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) NEW DELHI JANUARY 04, 2022. 3 ITEM NO.3 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XVII-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 4003/2019 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-03-2018 in AN No. 2029/2010 22-03-2018 in AN No. 3520/2010 26-10-2018 in APP No. 60490/2018 26-10-2018 in APP No. 60491/2018 passed by the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) M/S VENUS STAMPINGS PVT LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI IV Respondent(s) IA No. 6698/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 6699/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Date : 04-01-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ayush Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Balbir Singh, ASG Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. Mr. Manish, Adv. Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Akhil, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) (signed order is placed on the file) "
