Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Savi Vision Pvt. Ltd., Shri Sanjeev Ratra, Director Versus CC, New Delhi

2015 (9) TMI 1315 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Levy of CVD on the basis of MRP - Evasion of duty by mis-declaring RSP - On enquiry it was found that appellants sold imported goods to NCCF/KB at price higher than RSP declared at time of import – Demand of differential duty – Imposition of penalty – Held that:- sale of goods at price higher than RSP declared can only lead to conclusion that appellants mis-declared RSP of such goods at time of import – Appellants are therefore liable to pay differential duty.

RSP is only upper limit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ble – Allegation of collection of higher price is confined to sales effected to NCCF/KB therefore, demand of differential duty, has also to be confined to sales effected to NCCF/KB only.

Admittedly appellant sold imported goods not only to NCCF/KB but to other customers also – Goods sold to other customers were sold at RSP or prices lower than RSP declared – In such circumstances imposition of penalty of ₹ 25 lakhs is slightly on higher side – Therefore penalty reduced – Appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ded duty by mis-declaring the RSP and selling the goods imported at a higher price than the RSP declared at the time of import. 2. The brief facts are that the appellants, M/S Savi Vision (P) Ltd, deals in Audio Visual Equipments such as LCD projector, Plasma TV, Home Theatre System, DVD CAMM etc. and are also dealing in import of such goods. During the disputed period from 2001 2002 to 2004 2005 the appellants imported goods by declaring the RSP and paying duty on such assessment. A search was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

77; 6,93,820/- was deposited. It is also alleged that on enquiry it was found that the appellants sold such imported goods to NCCF/KB at a price higher than the RSP declared at the time of import. The appellants had sold goods to retailers and other customers besides sale to NCCF/KB. A show cause notice was issued alleging mis declaration of RSP, and proposing inter alia, demand of differential duty taking into consideration the price at which goods were sold to NCCF/KB. The notice was finalized .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng differential duty on past clearances along with interest (d) imposed equal amount of penalty besides penalty of ₹ 25 lakhs on Sh. Sanjeev Ratra, director of M/S SVPL under section 112 (a) of Customs Act 1962 and (e) ordered appropriation of the amount of ₹ 6,93,820/- already deposited by appellant. Aggrieved the appellants have preferred these appeals. 3. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellants can be summarized as under: i) The goods were imported by filing respective .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

P was declared on these master cartons. When individual packings were removed from master packing they did not bear the MRP. iii) The goods were sold by issuing proper invoices. 80% of the sale was made to consumers other than NCCF/KB and the price collected in these sales was lower than the RSP declared at the time of import. The details of price list of these sales were furnished. That only 20% sale was made to KB and NCCF. The detail of these sales was also furnished by the appellant. iv) Tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

garding display of MRP would not apply in case of sale to such institutional consumers, such sale not being to the ultimate consumer. In these circumstances, the transactions entered with Kendriya Bhandar/NCCF was for a price higher than that declared at the time of import. Further, that it is not possible for the appellants to foresee prior to import as to whom the goods will be sold after the import. v) That demand of differential duty of ₹ 1,50,88,287.05/- raised on the entire goods imp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e consumers/retailers at a price lower than the RSP declared. This aspect that the appellant had made major supply below the RSP was not taken into consideration at all. The assessment of differential duty on the basis of the price list of goods sold to NCCF/ KB is wholly unjustified as the appellant has made only 20% sale of goods imported to NCCF / KB. The rest was sold at price lower than the RSP declared at the time of import. Further application of the same price as the basis for calculatio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ges and also had mis-declared RSP at the time of import. ii) M/S SVPL had sold the goods at higher price than the declared RSP to NCCF/Kendriya Bhandar as is evidenced by their approved pricelist. The contention of the appellants that NCCF/Kendriya Bhandar are institutional consumers and that there is no requirement to display the MRP is untenable. That SVPL has not established that NCCF/KB are not ultimate consumer . The sale to NCCF/KB is also sale to ultimate consumer/retail sale. The sale of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to ultimate consumer. These prices are to be treated as the MRP at which the particular model may be sold to ultimate consumer. It is irrelevant whether the sale is to NCCF/KB or other ultimate consumer. It is also irrelevant whether the appellant has sold items to other consumers below the RSP declared at the time of import. Therefore the adjudicating authority has rightly taken the pricelist of sale made to NCCF/KB as the basis for assessing the differential duty. 5. Heard both sides and perus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ellants were under bonafide belief that the provisions of SWM Act 1976 & PC Rules 1977 was not attracted when goods are sold to NCCF/KB. Refuting the above contention of the appellant, the learned DR submitted that NCCF/KB are not institutional consumers. The sales effected to them are not outside the purview of SWM Act 1976 & PC Rules 1977. Such sale is a sale to the ultimate consumer. For a better appreciation the relevant definitions & provisions are noticed as under: retail deale .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l sale , in relation to a commodity, means the sale, distribution or delivery of such commodity through retail sales agencies or other instrumentalities for consumption by an individual or a group of individuals or any other consumer. Retail sale price means the maximum price at which the commodity in packaged form may be sold to the ultimate consumer and where such price is mentioned on the package, there shall be printed on the package the words. [Maximum or Max. retail price] inclusive of all .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r shall apply to packages intended for retail sale and the expression package wherever it occurs in this Chapter shall be construed accordingly. The Explanations to section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are as under: Explanation 1 : For the purpose of this section, retail sale price means the maximum price at which the excisable goods in packaged form may be sold to the ultimate consumer and includes all taxes, local or otherwise, freight, transport charges, commission payable to dealers, a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the maximum of such retail sale prices shall be deemed to be the retail sale price; (b) where the retail sale price, declared on the package of any excisable goods at the time of its clearance from the place of manufacture, is altered to increase the retail sale price, such altered retail sale price shall be deemed to be the retail sale price; 6. It is not disputed that the goods are notified under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is then incumbent upon the importer to declare the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

k for effecting sale to ultimate consumers and do not fall into the category of institutional consumers. Further the appellants have no case that they displayed upon the packages that the packings were for sale to institutional consumers and not for retail sale. The argument on behalf of the appellants that the appellants relied upon the Board Circular dated 28.2.2002 and was under the belief that MRP need not be affixed in effecting supply to NCCF/KB is without merits. As already stated NCCF/KB .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of differential duty demanded. On behalf of Revenue it was urged that as a appellant sold goods to NCCF/KB at higher price, this price being the highest as established from the approved price list of NCCF/KB these prices were taken for calculation of differential duty of the goods imported during the entire disputed period. That even though the appellant sold goods to other customers at prices lower than the declared RSP, as the appellant had mis-declared RSP, the highest price at which the good .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

collected where lower than the RSP declared. That in some cases the charges collected included cost of installation articles provided extra, and also installation charges. That the authorities below ought not to have demanded differential duty on the goods sold to customers other than NCCF/KB as there is no iota of evidence that such goods were sold at a price higher than declared RSP. The ld. Counsel relied upon the decision rendered in Commissioner of C. Ex., Vododara Vs. Bell Granito Ceramic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

than NCCF/KB were made at RSP or prices lower than the RSP declared at the time of import. In such circumstances we have to agree with the appellant s contention that the demand of differential duty on goods sold below RSP or goods sold at RSP is unjustified. Merely because the importer effected sale of some goods at price higher than the RSP declared, the Revenue cannot demand differential duty on entire import done as per various B/E during the period 2001- 2002 to 2004-2005. 10. In CCE Vododa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

A is to the effect that where more than one retail price is declared on the packet, the maximum of such retail price shall be deemed to be the retail price for the purpose of the Section. In the instant case, Revenue has no case that different MRP was affixed on same packages. So also it is not denied that the appellants sold goods to customers other than NCCF/KB at rates lower than the RSP declared at the time of import. Even then the adjudicating authority has raised demand of differential dut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

such score, there cannot be any mis-declaration of RSP if goods are sold at RSP or below RSP. Undeniably the allegation of collection of higher price is confined to the sales effected to NCCF/KB. The demand of differential duty, in our view, has also to be confined to sales effected to NCCF/KB only. In such circumstances the demand of differential duty of ₹ 1,50,88,287.05 on entire sales is unsustainable. According to the appellant the sales effected to NCCF/KB is only for ₹ 31,240,5 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the same item is imported, the supplier packed them in a master carton. MRP was declared on the master carton. When the individual packings were removed from the master carton they did not have the MRP declaration. We do not find this as a plausible explanation. As per the relevant provision of SWM Act 1976 and PC Rules 1977 the packages ought to have the MRP declared on them. Therefore, we hold that the confiscation and demand of differential duty on the seized goods in other view does not ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version