Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 32 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (10) TMI 32 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2016 (343) E.L.T. 190 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Levy of CVD on MRP basis - Determination of correct RSP - Confiscation of goods - whether the goods cleared in the past under Bills of Entry as detailed in Annexure 1 to the show cause notice need re-determination of RSP and their leviability to confiscation - Enhancement of penalty - Held that:- Goods are imported in package form and leviable to duty on RSP based assessment as stickers of higher MRP were found affixed on .....

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 list price. The proviso to Section 3(2) of Customs Tariff Act unambiguously states that in the case of such goods, the retail sale price has to be declared on the package as required under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act (SWM). The retail sale price is required to be declared in the case of imported goods which are specified under Section 4(A)(1) of the Central Excise Act. And the retail price which the respondent was required to declare on the goods packages is the maximum price 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

ovisions of this Chapter as to (a) name and address of the manufacturer (f) the retail sale price of the package. In the case of goods seized from the container as well as goods found in the godown, "the respondent have violated the provisions of the SWM(PC) Rules read with Section 3(2) of the CTA requiring importer to affix the label at the time of import. As those labels were not affixed as well as fact that RSP was not declared on the goods makes the goods liable to confiscation under Section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Central Excise Act, 1944 by misclassifying the goods. In the present case the facts are different. Here the MRP was wrongly declared in the Bill of Entry. After clearance form Customs, the appellants sold the goods at prices which are different from the MRP declared by them. - even if there are no machinery provisions laid down in Section 3(2) of the CTA and Section 4A(4) of the Central Excise Act, it cannot be concluded that Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act will become ineffective and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed by the respondent. 2. On specific intelligence, the Customs' Marine and Preventive wing on 5th June 2010 intercepted a container at Uran Phata, Junction, cleared from Customs at JNPT under B/E 662557 dt 28.05.2010 and on the way to Vashi. On examination, it was found that there was huge difference between MRP/RSP of the goods, namely Sanitary ware of Iron and Steel, declared in the Bill of Entry and the MRP declared on the price list obtained at their store at Vashi. The partner of the re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

price of Vashi store can be considered as MRP. Accordingly he paid differential duty of ₹ 1,49,754/- and ₹ 1,53,148/- on the goods which were cleared under the Bills of entry dated 28/5/2010 and B/E 813289 dt 18/12/2009. The goods in the container were seized. Equal quantity of packaging cartons provided with product code found in the containers were also seized. In further action the goods valued at ₹ 10310919/- lying in their godown at Vasai were seized for non declaration o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0 the respondent had imported consignments under 21 Bills of Entry. Therefore duty was demanded in respect of such good which were cleared from customs allegedly by declaring lower MRP. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods cleared, under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act with an option to redeem the same under Section 125 on payment of fine of ₹ 5 lakhs. Further, by rejecting the declared RSP and ordering the re-determining of RSP as ₹ 4,35,05,088 he confirmed the demand .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Section 111(m) and reduced redemption fine from ₹ 5 lakhs to ₹ 1 lakh. Further he reduced demand on the goods cleared in the past to ₹ 9,44,404/- for the reason that the Rules for determination of RSP were introduced by notification No. 13/2008 dt 1/3/2008 (sic) and such determination can be done only after 1/3/3008 (sic). Accordingly, he confirmed penalty of ₹ 9,44,404/- under Section 114(A). He upheld the penalty of ₹ 1 lakh on the partner. 3. Heard both sides. 4. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted to RSP based assessment under Section 4A and the MRP as revealed from the documents was known to the importer. Correspondingly the equivalent penalty under Section 114A of ₹ 15,33,382/- is imposable. The second ground of appeal is that the Commissioner ignored the fact that the importer did not put RSP labels on the pre-packed commodities in terms of Notification No. 44/RE-2000/1997-2002 dated 24/11/2000 issued by DGFT read with Section 46 of the Customs Act making the goods seized in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ept those mentioned in Bills of Entry dated 28/5/2010 and 18/12/2009 are not liable for confiscation. (c) Only those goods were seized which did not bear MRP labels at the time of import but no investigation was done to establish that these goods were imported under the 21 Bills of Entry, therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) held that these are not liable for confiscation. (d) The goods are not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) having already been cleared for home consumption to becom .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

C.A. certificate dated 1/4/2012 states that Stainless Steel sink covered under two Bills of Entry were sold at the declaration of RSP and not as per price list. Therefore differential duty of ₹ 149754/- and 153148/- is not payable nor the goods are liable to confiscation. (i) The Adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) gave finding that there is no proof whether the RSP labels were pasted on the goods cleared in the past and there is no evidence to show that the goods seized .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Bills of Entry as detailed in Annexure 1 to the show cause notice need re-determination of RSP and their leviability to confiscation. Third aspect is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could have enhanced the penalty imposed under Section 114A without giving notice the respondent. 7.1 On the first issue, Revenue's stand that the goods are sold after affixing MRP on the packages, is contested. We find that the goods were being taken in the container and the packages were stacked on the pallet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

etails such as product name, size, quantity, MRP, Email Address of the Respondent. Investigation also showed that the price list, MRP stickers, sale invoices showed higher price than the MRP declared to customs at the time of import. IT was also revealed by Shri. D. Mohan Reddy, Godown Incharge that the MRP is provided on the cartons with rubber stamp at the time of dispatch as per the price list received from their head office. This fact also comes down in the panchanama when samples of cartons .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d from the CA much later to the effect that goods were sold at lower prices makes no material difference because the MRP declared in the price list and the stickers is higher and the partner admitted at the time of import that they are selling the goods at the list price. The proviso to Section 3(2) of Customs Tariff Act unambiguously states that in the case of such goods, the retail sale price has to be declared on the package as required under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act (SWM). T .....

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 details of the MRP and other details were being printed on the cartons with sticker generated on the printer machine which was also seized under the Panachanama on 9 th Jun 2010. The same facts were also admitted by the partner Shri. Rajesh Ahuja, Manager marketing, for the respondent who submitted copies of the stickers in respect of various models. It is also seen from the records that some goods were lying packed condition in the godown with sticker affixed on them. Investigation also sho .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act. 7.3 The goods also being notified under Notification No. 49/08-CE; therefore both the conditions specified in proviso to Section 3(2) of the CTA are met and goods will be leviable to RSP based assessment. Rule 6(1) of the SWM(PC) Rules, states that (i) Every package shall bear their own owned label securely affixed thereto defined plain and conspicuous declaration made in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter as to (a) name and address of the manufacturer (f) the retail sale price .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the Commissioner (Appeals) found no evidence to prove that goods seized from the godown were the same as those covered by the remaining bills of Entry mentioned in Annexure (1) to the show cause notice is not acceptable because modus operandi followed is confirmed by the statements of various people as mentioned above. It has been confessed by the partner that they bring all the goods to their godown at Vashi. No evidence has been provided to show that the goods lying in the godown are not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

failing to observe the requirement of the SWM Act. They will also be leviable to duty on actual MRP basis. The plea that adjudicating authority did not confiscate goods under Section 111(d) and the same was not challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) does not mean that the department is precluded from invoking the correct provisions of law. 7.5 The third issue contended is that enhancement of penalty from ₹ 2 lakhs was not a matter before the Commissioner (Appeals). We find that Sect .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(supra). We have noted this argument. We find that the proviso to Section 3(2) states that "provided that in case of an article imported into India, - a) in relation to which it is required, under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) or the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time beingin force, to declare on the package thereof the retail sale price of such articles; and (b) where the like article produced or manufactured in India, .....

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 the Central Excise Act, necessarily the CVD is to be charged on MRP basis. The proviso to Section 3(2) of Customs Tariff Act unambiguously states that in the case of such goods, the retail sale price has to be declared on the package as required under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, (SWM) The critical words are "required" and "declared" . There is not an iota of doubt that the retail sale price is required to be declared in the case of imported goods which are s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ems, were cleared without declaring the RSP, and actually the goods were cleared by paying CVD in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by misclassifying the goods. In the present case the facts are different. Here the MRP was wrongly declared in the Bill of Entry. After clearance form Customs, the appellants sold the goods at prices which are different from the MRP declared by them. The case of Revenue is that the MRP was wrongly declared. It is our considered view that even if 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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