By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, NOV 02, 2013: THE facts of the case are that the appellants imported a consignment of lipsticks and as per the invoice the goods were 3456 pcs x 8 shade totaling 27648 pcs blue Avianceslimline lipsticks SPF 5 with weight of 2.2.gm/pc. It is the contention of the appellants that for the purpose of CVD on the imported goods, transaction value as per Sec. 4 of CEA, 1944 should be taken as assessable value and not on the basis of Sec. 4A of the Act as lipsticks weighing 2.2 gms a piece is not subject to the Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976.

Both the lower authorities did not accept the contention of the appellants and asked them to make the payment of differential duty on the basis of the MRP.

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before the CESTAT. The year is 2003.

After ten years, the matter was heard finally.

The appellants submitted that identical issue came up before theTribunal in the case of M/s. Pidilite Industries Ltd. wherein Fevistick/Gluestick/Prime Stick having weight 5 gms or 8 gms were imported and in that case, the Tribunal had vide order No. A/973-986/13/CSTB/C-I dated 2.4.2013 (2013-TIOL-1592-CESTAT-MUM) held that duty is to be paid as per Section 4 i.e. transaction value of the impugned goods and the provisions of Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 are not applicable and the appellants are not required to pay duty on the basis of MRP.

The Revenue representative reiterated the order of the lower authority and submitted that as the goods are imported in numbers, therefore, there is no concern with the weight and Rule 34 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules 1977 provides that if the goods are sold in numbers they are required to affix MRP.

The Bench held that since in similar issue concerning M/s. Pidilite Industries Ltd. the CESTAT had held that although the goods are sold in numbers, they are not required to pay duty on MRP as having the weight less than 10 gms per pc, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.

(See 2013-TIOL-1630-CESTAT-MUM)