9911796707
TMI BlogCivil Appeal No. 4964/200 filed by M/s. Sony India Ltd. Vs CCE, Delhi against CEGAT Order No. 488/2000-A dated 12/06/2000; Supreme Court Order dated 05.05.2004 upholding mandatory penalty equal to duty U/Sec. 11AC.X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eps be taken to circulate it and bring to the knowledge of field formations. The receipt of the circular may please be acknowledged. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4964 OF 2000 M/s Sony. India Ltd. …….Appellant Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi ... Respondent JUDGEMENT RAJENDRA BABU, CJI. : A show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Commissioner of Central Excise demanding duty of Rs. 2,07,64,870.16 for the period from 1.7.1998 to 31.1.1999. The appellant complied with the demand under protest without prejudice to their contentions and filed a reply to the show cause notice contesting the various points raised therein. The Commissioner ultimately gave a finding that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ages would be attracted and that under Section 4-A(2) , of the Central Excise Act, 1944 excise duty is liable to be paid at the applicable, rate with reference to the retail, sale price after effecting the abatement from the retail sale price as specified in the said provision and, therefore, the Tribunal held that the CTVs are subject to duty @ 18% ad valorem. As regards offer of gifts made by the appellant, it was stated that notwithstanding free gifts offered by the appellant to the buyers on the sale of TV sets, the sale price charged from the buyers will not cease to be the sole consideration for such sale and, therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the findings of the Commissioner that it was mandatory for the appellant to print the maximu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mises to the depots; that this was done with the sole intention to avoid payment of duty at the appropriate rate applicable to their goods; that, therefore, there was hardly any circumstance for the appellant to raise the plea of bona fide belief. The Tribunal was of the view that the extended period for the demand of duty and the penal provisions under Section 11-AB and 11-AC have been rightly invoked by the Commissioner. The Tribunal was not impressed with the decisions cited before it, viz. Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and Ors., 1980 ELT 295, Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company vs. Collector of Central Excise Bombay, 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC), State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Kasturi Lal Har Lal, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and cordless head phone as gifts free of cost and cla1med that they were entitled to pay specific rate of duty. The basic plea was that they had not printed any sale price of colour television sets at the time of clearance from their factory gate and the price offer was not the sole consideration in the said transaction in as much as certain gifts were involved. It has been found as a matter of fact by the Tribunal and by the Commissioner that the appellant had cleared the goods from factory without indicating the price thereof but affixed the price in their depots. Therefore, it is clear that the whole object of removing the goods from their factory premises to their depots was with the purpose of getting over the payment of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 11-AB was justified in the circumstances that arise in the case. The Commissioner had imposed penalty to an extent of Rs. 2,07,64,870.16 equivalent to the, duty that was payable by the appellant. Under Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act, the manner in which the whole transaction went on makes it very clear that the appellant became liable to pay duty under the circumstances which warrant application of the provisions of Section 11-A(i) and, therefore, we thing if the authorities chose to impose penalty equivalent to duty payable by the appellant, we do not think, there is any justification for us to interfere with the same. The decisions adverted to by the learned counsel have different complexions and bearing, These cit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
