2006 (7) TMI 431 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty liability and penalty under Section 11AC
2. Demand for interest under Section 11AB
3. Valuation of goods based on MRP

Analysis:

Issue 1: Duty liability and penalty under Section 11AC
The case involved a manufacturer of electric ceiling fans, where the Department found clearances without payment of duty exceeding the exemption limit. The lower authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty under Section 11AC. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the duty liability but upheld the penalty and confiscation of fans. The appellant argued that they believed the units recognized by Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board were exempt from duty. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention, setting aside the penalty and limiting the duty demand to a normal period of six months. As there was no malafide intent, the penalty was revoked, and interest under Section 11AB was deemed inapplicable to the period before the Finance Act 2001. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for duty liability to be recalculated for the normal period.

Issue 2: Demand for interest under Section 11AB
The appellant contended that interest under Section 11AB was not applicable to the period before the Finance Act 2001. The Tribunal agreed, setting aside the demand for interest as the duty liability pertained to a period before the Finance Act 2001.

Issue 3: Valuation of goods based on MRP
The Revenue appealed the valuation of electric fans based on MRP, arguing that the uniform price of Rs. 1350/- for all varieties was incorrect. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the duty liability after verifying invoices for actual prices. The appellant argued that different varieties had different MRPs, and stickers showing actual MRP were affixed on the cartons. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the correct MRP affixed by stickers should be adopted for each fan variety. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the valuation based on actual prices indicated in invoices and MRP affixed by stickers on cartons.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's appeal for duty liability recalibration, set aside the penalty and interest demands, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding valuation based on MRP.