2009 (8) TMI 547 - AT - Customs

Demand- Limitation- Notification No. 13/2002-C.E. amended by Notification No. 5/2005-C.E. dated 24.02.2005- The tiles manufactured and sold in India is liable to central excise duty. Proviso to Section 3(2) required payment of CVD on the basis of MRP, on the imported goods, if there is a requirement to affix MRP on the imported goods under the 1977 Rules and if the said commodity is notified under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In as much as the bills of entry filed by the appellant for the consignments imported during the period August, 2005 till February 2006, did not declare the MRP affixed on the said imported goods, the same were assessed to CVD duty on the basis of the invoice value shown therein. In as much as the goods were admittedly liable to CVD on the basis of MRP, investigations were initiated against them and a show cause notice was issued for determination of differential duty. The said show cause notice culminated into the impugned order passed by the Commissioner confirming demand of duty of Rs. 1,83,19,587/- along with imposition of penalty of identical amount upon M/s. Euro and penalties of varying amounts on the other appellants. The adjudicating authority has also held that the goods were liable for confiscation and has accordingly imposed redemption fine. Held that- it is a case of mutual mistake and in absence of mala fides, extended period could not be invoked. Declaration filed by the importer could not be said to be mis-statement with intent to evade payment of duty.

Issues:
1. Dispute regarding demand of duty against M/s. Euro Merchandise (I) Ltd. and imposition of penalties on various appellants arising out of the same impugned order.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 13/2002-C.E. (N.T.) as amended by Notification No. 5/2005-C.E. (N.T.) for central excise duty on imported vitrified and glazed tiles.
3. Assessment of countervailing duty (CVD) on the basis of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) declaration on imported goods.
4. Interpretation of Notification No. 72/2005-Cus. regarding duty payment on the basis of invoice value.
5. Invocation of longer period of limitation for duty determination due to non-declaration of MRP on imported goods.
6. Mutual mistake by the appellant and customs authorities in not declaring MRP for assessment of duty.
7. Justification for non-invocation of longer period of limitation in the absence of mala fide intention or suppression of facts.

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns a dispute over the demand of duty against M/s. Euro Merchandise (I) Ltd. and imposition of penalties on various appellants arising from the same impugned order. The issue revolves around the confirmation of duty demand and penalties by the Commissioner, leading to appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad.

2. The case involves the interpretation and application of Notification No. 13/2002-C.E. (N.T.) as amended by Notification No. 5/2005-C.E. (N.T.) for the liability of central excise duty on imported vitrified and glazed tiles falling under specific subheadings of the Central Excise Tariffs. The notification mandates duty payment based on MRP declared on the package, subject to abatement, and the assessment of CVD on imported goods.

3. The assessment of CVD on the basis of MRP declaration on imported goods is a crucial aspect of the case. The appellant's failure to declare MRP on imported goods led to investigations, a show cause notice, and the imposition of duty demand and penalties by the Commissioner. The Tribunal analyzed the requirement of MRP declaration for duty assessment and the consequences of non-compliance.

4. The judgment delves into the impact of Notification No. 72/2005-Cus., which affected duty payment based on invoice value, creating confusion regarding the necessity of declaring MRP on imported goods. The appellant argued that the notification led to a genuine belief that MRP declaration was no longer required, citing instances of non-declaration and payment of duty at various ports.

5. The issue of invoking a longer period of limitation for duty determination due to non-declaration of MRP on imported goods is addressed. The Tribunal considered the appellant's contention of bona fide belief following the issuance of Notification No. 72/2005-Cus., supported by statements of involved parties during investigations.

6. The judgment highlights a mutual mistake by the appellant and customs authorities in not declaring MRP for duty assessment. The Tribunal noted the absence of a requirement to declare MRP during assessment, indicating a lack of mala fide intention or suppression of facts by the appellant in the duty payment process.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding the demands barred by limitation due to being raised beyond the permissible period. The penalties imposed and confiscation of goods were set aside, emphasizing the absence of mala fide intent or suppression, and the mutual mistake in MRP declaration for duty assessment.

← Previous Next →