The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench, has set aside an excise duty demand raised on a manufacturer, Wipro Ltd. of laptops in relation to supplies made to the Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (ELCOT) under a government student distribution scheme.
The bench of Mr. P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Mr. M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) observed that the goods were rightly assessed on transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, and not on the basis of the Retail Sale Price (RSP) under Section 4A.
The Appellant, Wipro Ltd. is a manufacturer of laptops falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It appears that during July 2012 to December 2012, the Appellant had cleared about 4,661 laptops in bulk to ELCOT Electronic Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd.) by adopting the transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which did not find favour with the Revenue as the Revenue felt that the said laptops should have been assessed on the basis of Retail Sale Price (R.S.P) in terms of Section 4A and the above resulted in issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 28.05.2013 proposing to demand the differential duty.
After due process, the Adjudicating Authority vide the Order-in-Original No.76/2014-CE dated 15.07.2014 appears to have confirmed all the demands proposed in the SCN and the Appellant aggrieved by the demands approached the First Appellate Authority by filing an Appeal and the First Appellate Authority also having rejected their Appeal.
The case concerned bulk clearance of 4,661 laptops during July 2012 to December 2012 to ELCOT, which were to be distributed free of cost to school students under a Government of Tamil Nadu welfare initiative. The Revenue had taken the view that the goods should have been valued on MRP basis, alleging that Section 4A applied, and accordingly issued a show cause notice to demand differential duty.
Both the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority had confirmed the demand, prompting the appellant to move the CESTAT.
The CESTAT noted that ELCOT was purchasing the laptops exclusively for non-commercial, welfare distribution purposes, and not for sale, marketing or any service industry application.
The Tribunal held, “The reasons for demanding the differential duty stand answered in the decision of the Principal Bench… and hence the demand upheld in the impugned order cannot sustain.”
Case Details
Case Title: M/s.Wipro Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case No.: Excise Appeal No. 40803 of 2016
Date: 29.10.2025
Counsel For Appellant: M.N. Bharathi, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: M. Selvakumar, Authorized Representative
Read More: GSTN Issues Advisory To File Pending Returns Before Expiry Of 3 Years