TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a in December, 2001; that they imported two containers of goods of Marks Spencer in November 2001; that the working of MRP based duty was done by the person handling clearance in a great haste, as there was a lot of pressure to quickly clear the goods in order to open the retail outlets as per schedule; that thus no actual costing of the items could be done in proper and rationale manner to arrive at MRPs; that their showrooms, corporate office and the warehouse were searched by the Officers on 15-1-2002 and 16-1-2002 and the goods were seized; that the Commissioner of Customs, under the impugned order, confirmed the demand for differential duty, confiscated the seized goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty, if any, was result of inadvertence. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of EID Parry (India) Ltd. v. CC, Jaipur [2003 (157) E.L.T. 193 (T) = 2003 (57) RLT 805]. 4. Countering the arguments, Mrs. Krishna A. Mishra, learned Senior Departmental Representative, reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned Order and emphasised that the goods were sold at a price higher than the MRP declared by the Appellants; that as such they had misdeclared the correct price of the goods on the basis of which Additional Customs Duty was chargeable; that Shri Dipak Agarwal, their Finance Controller, has admitted in his statement dated 15-1-2002 that there is some difference in MRP declared with Customs and MRP at which goods a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Government may allow. The facts which are not in dispute are that the impugned goods are the goods in relation to which the retail sale price is to be declared on the packages under the law for the time being in force and these goods have been specified by the Central Government under Section 4A(1) of the Central Excise Act. It is also not disputed by the Appellants that the MRP declared by them at the time of importation was not the same at which the goods were sold by them subsequently. This fact has been admitted by Shri Dipak Agarwal, Financial Controller of the Appellants, in his statements. Accordingly, the appellants are liable to discharge their duty liability on the basis of actual MRP at which the impugned goods are sold an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
