TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 2(p) of Packaged Commodities Rules as the same applied to imported packages also. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the importer to get the re-labeling done before they were cleared through the Customs - The appellant declared in the import documents that the goods are meant for captive use and not for trading - there was a clear mis-declaration on the part of the appellant. Extended period of limitation – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The extended period of time has also been correctly invoked for demand of excise duty - the goods in respect of which the claim is made is not covered by the Third Schedule of the Act, this claim would need verification – also, the claim for Cenvat Credit of the duty paid on imported goods also would need verification which can be done at the time of final disposal - appellant has not made out any prima facie case for complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the dues – the appellant directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 2 crore - upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal – Partial stay granted. - E/87474/13 - - - Dated:- 19-8-2013 - P R Chandrasekharan And Anil Choudhary, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Gajendra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; and Institutional consumers' means those consumers who buy packaged commodities directly from the manufacturers/packers for using the product in their industry for production, etc 2.2 Investigation conducted revealed that M/s Henkel were selling these goods in retail packages and marketing their products though dealers/distributors and were also declaring MRP on such retail packages. It was also noticed that the appellant had started discharging duty liability on the manufactured goods on MRP basis under section 4A with effect from 15-5-2008 onwards. As regards imported goods, the appellant cleared the same through customs by paying CVD on transaction value basis by declaring that the goods were meant for captive use. The imported goods were brought into their factory for re-labelling/affixing MRPs and thereafter sold in the Indian Market through dealers/distributors. Since the goods were specified in the third Schedule to the Central Excise Act and in respect of the goods specified packing, re-packing, labeling or adoption of any other treatment to render the goods marketable were deemed to be manufacture' as defined in section 2(f) of the said Central Excise Act. Accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8-11-2008 of Sri. Kamat, the Factory Manager and therefore, duty demand on MRP basis prior to that date is not sustainable. (4) The demand is hit by time bar. Accordingly, he pleads for grant of stay. 4. The ld. Commissioner(AR) appearing for the Revenue re-iterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. He submitted that the appellant had resorted to deception for evasion of duty. From the statement dated 29/7/2010 of Sri.Raghunath Bhau Shinde, Manager of the CHA firm which had filed the import documents on behalf of the appellant, it is evident that the appellant had declared the goods under importation as for captive use whereas the appellant was trading in the imported goods. This has been done to avoid payment of CVD on MRP basis at the time of importation. The appellant also did not inform the department of the activity undertaken on the imported goods. The statement dated 22-4-2010 of Sri. Praveen Sonar, logistics Assistant of the appellant firm clearly shows that the appellant had undertaken the activity of re-labeling even during the period January 2007 to May 2008. Statement dated 19-7-2010 of Smt. Sandhya Raghavendran of M/s. Gurukripa Enterprises, distri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imported traded goods were in retail packages and the appellant had undertaken the activity of re-labeling in the appellant's factory even during the period 13-1-2007 to 14-5-2008. From the statements dated 19-7-2010 of Shri. K. Raghuram, Sales Manager of Cutmac Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Chennai, Shri. J. Alexander, Business Development Executive of Saroj Enterprises, Coimbatore, Sri, Suresh Gupta of Micro Sales Corp., Mumbai, Sri. Arun Agarwal of M/s. Jay Kay Enterprises, Goa and Smt. Sandhya Raghavendran of Gurukrupa Enterprises, Bangalore, all distributors of the appellant firm, it is evident that the imported goods traded by the appellant were in retail packages and were affixed with labels containing details including MRP. In addition the appellants were also circulating price lists indicating MRPs. If the goods were not meant for retail sale, there was no need to undertake any of these activities. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that they started declaring MRP only with effect from 15-5-2008 as stated by Shri. Kamat, Factory Manager stands disproved. From these evidences available on record, it is evident that the goods were meant for retail sale and they were not meant speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
