Supreme Court Rules on Excise Duty for Tobacco Packaging: Section 4A Not Applicable

The Supreme Court of India has ruled in favor of M/s Miraj Products Pvt. Ltd. in a dispute over the application of excise duty on packaged chewing tobacco under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The case, Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur -II v. M/s Miraj Products Pvt. Ltd., involved the classification of poly packs containing multiple pouches of chewing tobacco and whether they qualified as ‘retail packages’ requiring excise duty based on Maximum Retail Price (MRP).

Background of the Case

The dispute originated when the Excise Department issued multiple show cause notices to M/s Miraj Products Pvt. Ltd., arguing that the company’s packaging of chewing tobacco in poly packs constituted retail packaging under the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 (SWM Rules). The department contended that since the packaging exceeded 10 grams in weight, it should be subject to excise duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, which mandates duty assessment based on MRP.

The Commissioner of Central Excise upheld this view, ruling that the poly packs were retail packages and imposing duty accordingly. However, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) overturned this decision, holding that the poly packs were not retail packages but wholesale packages, thus exempting them from duty under Section 4A.

Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court

Whether poly packs containing multiple pouches of chewing tobacco qualified as ‘retail packages’ under the SWM Rules.
Whether the declaration of MRP on the poly packs automatically subjected them to excise duty under Section 4A.
Whether the sale of HDPE bags containing multiple poly packs constituted wholesale trade, making them exempt from Section 4A.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II, argued:

The poly packs were intended for retail sale, as they contained weight and MRP details, aligning with Rule 16 of the SWM Rules.
Printing an MRP on the packaging indicated an intent for retail sale, making the goods taxable under Section 4A.
The Tribunal erred in not considering that the larger poly packs contained multiple smaller pouches intended for individual sale.

Respondent’s Arguments

M/s Miraj Products Pvt. Ltd. countered with the following arguments:

The poly packs were not sold directly to consumers but were bundled into HDPE bags and distributed to wholesalers.
The presence of MRP did not automatically make them retail packages, as Rule 34(b) of the SWM Rules provided exemptions for packages exceeding 10 grams.
The Tribunal correctly ruled that HDPE bags containing multiple poly packs constituted wholesale packages and were not subject to Section 4A.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the relevant legal provisions and made the following observations:

1. Definition of Retail Sale and Wholesale Packages

The Court referred to Rule 2(q) of the SWM Rules, which defines ‘retail sale’ as the sale of goods for consumption by individuals or groups. It held that the sale of HDPE bags containing multiple poly packs did not constitute retail sale.

2. Applicability of Section 4A

The Court ruled that merely printing an MRP on packaging does not automatically subject it to duty under Section 4A. The essential factor was whether the package was intended for retail sale.

3. Role of Rule 34(b) of the SWM Rules

The Court acknowledged that Rule 34(b) exempts packages exceeding 10 grams from retail packaging regulations. Since the poly packs contained more than 10 grams of chewing tobacco, they did not qualify as retail packages.

4. Tribunal’s Interpretation Upheld

The Court agreed with the Tribunal’s conclusion that the poly packs were part of wholesale trade, exempting them from Section 4A.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

The poly packs did not qualify as retail packages under the SWM Rules.
Section 4A of the Central Excise Act was not applicable to the goods in question.
The Tribunal’s decision was upheld, and the appeals filed by the Excise Department were dismissed.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling sets a significant precedent for the classification of packaged goods under the excise regime. It clarifies that the mere presence of an MRP does not determine taxability under Section 4A and that the nature of the transaction—whether retail or wholesale—is the key determinant.

The judgment provides relief to businesses dealing in bulk-packaged goods, ensuring that wholesale transactions are not unfairly subjected to excise duty meant for retail sales.

Petitioner Name: Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II.
Respondent Name: M/s Miraj Products Pvt. Ltd..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Pankaj Mithal.
Place Of Incident: Jaipur, Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 08-07-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: commissioner-of-cent-vs-ms-miraj-products-p-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-08-07-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Income Tax Disputes
See all petitions in GST Law
See all petitions in Tax Evasion Cases
See all petitions in Banking Regulations
See all petitions in Customs and Excise
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in Judgment by Pankaj Mithal
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Taxation and Financial Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Taxation and Financial Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Taxation and Financial Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Taxation and Financial Cases Category