TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... option at the time of import - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, appellant is barred from disposal of the impugned goods without affixing the various particulars prescribed under Legal Metrology Act, 2011 and, therefore, in conjunction with inclusion in Third Schedule of Central Excise Act, 1944, the goods cannot be denied assessment to additional duty of customs by reference to declared, or assessed, transaction value. The expression that is variably deployed in connection with such assessment is intended for retail sale and, thereby, implies the existence of such labelled price from the time of import or clearance from factory, as the case may be, till arrival at the point of retail sale as demonstrative of intention. Such goods when routed throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : C J MATHEW: This appeal lies against order-in-appeal no.CC(A)/CUS/DII/ICD/TKD-EXP/273/2019-20 dated 6 th June, 2019 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi in which proceedings, initiated against M/s Mahle Engine Components India Pvt Ltd for not having discharged additional duty of customs in accordance with proviso to section 3(2) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975,were concluded with confirmation of differential duty liability of ₹ 20,05,573/-, confiscation of goods under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem on payment of fine of ₹ 10,00,000/-and imposition of penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/-under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 were upheld. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant points out that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el on the decision of the Tribunal in Starlite Components Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise Nashik [2012 (286) ELT 243 (Tri-Mumbai)] and on the decision of the Tribunal in Mitashi Edutainment Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai [2018 (12) TMI 390 (Tribunal)] which, upon reference to Third Member, has held, by majority, that there was no provision for assessment by recourse to retail selling price except upon voluntary adoption at the time of import. 5. Learned Authorised Representative drew attention to the findings in the impugned order as well as the order of original authority and distinguished the decision in re Starlite Components Limited. According to him, the goods impugned therein require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppear that demonstrated intention of the importer/manufacturer by affixing of retail selling price is the sole decider for adopting the alternative mechanism for assessment of additional duties of customs or duties of central excise, as the case may be. 7. In re Starlite Components Limited, it has been held that As regards the appeal of the importer, the declaration of MRP for the purpose of levy of CVD is required only when there is a statutory requirement under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 to declare on the package thereof the retail sale price of such article. Only when the goods are intended for retail sale and are packed in retail packages, the provisions of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of payment of redemption fine would not arise and also no penal consequence would follow under Section 112(a) ibid. 8. From the decision supra of the Tribunal, we deduce that, even if such goods are covered by notification for assessment to duties of central excise on retail selling price to the extent that these are further subject to duties of central excise in circumstances of inclusion in the Third Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the prescription of affixing of retail selling price and assessment thereof does not arise. Therefore, the consequence is assessment on the basis of transaction value. 9. Learned Authorised Representative did draw our attention to the decision of the H on'ble High Court of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
