9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08 and filed bill of entry No. 6422284 dated 19.08.2016. The RMS system raised a query seeking the MRP of the goods as that was considered mandatory under the provisions of section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the purpose of levy of CVD. The Central Excise had issued notification No. 49/2008-CE (NT) dated 24.12.2008, whereby abatement has been provided in respect of goods covered by MRP. This bill of entry filed by the appellant was recalled for amendment under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 and reassessment under section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962. The bill of entry was thereafter, reassessed and countervailing duty was demanded on the basis of MRP. After noticing the above, the revenue sought reassessment of similar bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally when the MRP could also have been asked for by the revenue. The Learned Counsel argued that mere non-mention of MRP based assessment cannot be an offence under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. It was further argued that the goods are no longer available for confiscation and therefore no proposal for confiscation could have been made. 2.4 The Learned Counsel further argued that for penalty section 114(AA) has been invoked. The argued that the said section applies only when a person "knowingly or intentionally" makes a false declaration. The learned Counsel argued that mere non-mention of MRP based assessment for the purpose of CVD cannot be called mis-declaration within the meaning of said section. 2.5 The Learned Counsel fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise Duty on the basis of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, for the purpose of charging CVD also, the MRP based assessment became applicable. The goods in respect of which the show cause notice was issued were cleared in the situation where the importer had not declared MRP though there was no mis-declaration in description of goods or classification. This show cause notice was issued after obtaining MRP from the importer. The Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the goods are accessories and not parts. He relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Banco Products India Pvt. Ltd. This argument was that accessories will not be covered under Sr. No. 108 of notification no. 49/2008 CE (NT) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
