9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1242 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - mention of two MRPs - intimation/declaration filed with Department or not? - demand of duty with interest and penalty - time limitation - Held that - The appellant had filed two price declarations one for clearance at MRP of ₹ 471/- all over India and the second for clearance at MRP of ₹ 390/- for some states in Northern Region. The second declaration for clearance at MRP of ₹ 390/- has been acknowledged by the Inspector of the Dept on 8.3.2001 - the allegation of the Dept. that there was no intimation or declaration filed with the Dept. is incorrect. Since there were two price declarations, one for all India and another for Northern states at the MRP of ₹ 471/- and ₹ 390/- w.e.f. 8.3.2001 respectively, the authorised signatory had mentioned the facts correctly - there is no substance in the Revenue s contention that there was mala fide intent. Demand not sustainable both on merit and on limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Appeal against duty demand based on alleged underpayment of excise duty on goods cleared at lower MRP, validity of penalty imposition, submission of price declarations, and the sustainability of the demand.
Analysis: 1. Underpayment of Excise Duty: The case involved the appellant, engaged in manufacturing household plastic articles, who allegedly cleared goods at a lower Maximum Retail Price (MRP) than declared, resulting in underpayment of excise duty. The Central Excise officers observed discrepancies in the clearance of Milton Water Jug Kool Cascades 190 Lts during a specific period. The appellant had cleared a significant number of items at a lower MRP, leading to the duty demand. However, the appellant argued that they had filed two price declarations, one for all India and another for specific states at different MRPs, which was acknowledged by the Inspector of the Department. The Tribunal found that the appellant had acted in accordance with the law by submitting the price declarations, and there was no mala fide intent in the discrepancies observed. 2. Validity of Penalty Imposition: The original adjudication order imposed penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with a penalty on the authorized signatory. However, in the appeal, the penalty against the signatory was dropped. The appellant contended that they had kept the Department informed and acted as per law, indicating that the penalty imposition was unjustified. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, finding no substance in the Revenue's contention of mala fide intent. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the penalty imposition was not sustainable. 3. Submission of Price Declarations: The appellant's submission regarding the filing of two price declarations, one for clearance at MRP of ?471/- all over India and another for clearance at MRP of ?390/- for specific states in the Northern Region, played a crucial role in the case. The acknowledgment of the second declaration by the Inspector of the Department on a specific date validated the appellant's compliance with the legal requirements. This submission was pivotal in establishing the appellant's adherence to the law and refuting the allegations of non-compliance. 4. Sustainability of the Demand: After examining the records and arguments from both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the demand for duty was not sustainable on both merit and limitation grounds. The Tribunal highlighted the presence of two valid price declarations, the lack of mala fide intent, and the appellant's adherence to legal procedures as reasons for setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowing the appeal. This decision emphasized the importance of compliance with legal requirements and the significance of proper documentation in excise duty matters. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in this case revolved around the appellant's adherence to legal procedures, submission of price declarations, absence of mala fide intent, and the sustainability of the duty demand and penalty imposition. The detailed analysis provided insights into the legal intricacies and factual considerations that influenced the Tribunal's decision to set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allow the appeal.
|
