2024 (10) TMI 1459 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of boxes of branded ceramic floor / wall tiles seized at the premises 693 boxes - boxes of ceramic glazed wall tiles cleared from the factory without payment of appropriate Central Excise duty and without declaring correct MRP - imposed a fine and penalty in lieu of confiscation - imposition of personal penalty of Rs.15,000/ under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on Managing Partner - Whether MRP could be revised in regard to ceramic tiles which were manufactured and cleared from the factory of the manufacturer prior to 28/02/2008? - HELD THAT - As there has been enough litigation as stated by the appellant and appeal of the department is pending in Supreme Court without stay. This Court also finds that the legal proposition about alteration of MRP as laid down in the case of Acme Ceramics 2014 (10) TMI 14 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD is clear on this aspect which has been followed even in number of cases as cited (supra) and which concludes that absence of provision relating to demand of duty in case of change of MRP and from whom for the period 01.03.2008 is fatal to the Revenue s case. In view of consistent decisions of this bench this court is inclined to follow the aforesaid decisions in this case also and holds that the lack of provision at the relevant time goes against the Revenue. This court also finds that the case law cited by the learned Advocate cited above that if there is no demand of duty there cannot be any imposition of penalty and fine is relevant for setting a side penalties. The appeals filed by the appellants are therefore, liable to succeed and same are allowed with consequential relief.

Issues Involved:

1. Confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty on ceramic tiles based on incorrect MRP declaration.
2. Applicability of revised MRP/RSP rules prior to 01/03/2008.
3. Validity of penalties imposed on manufacturer and dealer in absence of revised MRP/RSP rules.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation and Imposition of Fine and Penalty:

The appeals were filed against the confiscation of 693 boxes of ceramic tiles and the imposition of fines and penalties under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The adjudicating authority had ordered the confiscation of tiles valued at Rs.1,57,900/- and imposed a fine of Rs.13,000/- in lieu of confiscation, along with penalties of Rs.15,000/- each on the manufacturer, M/s. Shah Tiles Ltd., and Mr. R. Kumar, the Managing Partner of M/s. Aravind Ceramic. The appellants challenged the confiscation and penalties, arguing that the goods were cleared without payment of appropriate duty and without declaring the correct MRP.

2. Applicability of Revised MRP/RSP Rules Prior to 01/03/2008:

The central issue was whether the MRP could be revised for goods manufactured and cleared before 28/02/2008. The appellants argued that prior to the enactment of Notification No. 13/2008-C.E., which came into effect on 01/03/2008, there was no provision for re-determining the MRP/RSP under Section 4A(4) of the Central Excise Act. The tribunal referenced several cases, including Millennium Appliances India Ltd. and Ravi Foods Pvt. Ltd., which held that the Revenue could not redetermine MRP/RSP in the absence of rules prior to 01/03/2008. The tribunal concluded that since the period in dispute was before 01/03/2008, the revised MRP/RSP rules were not applicable, and thus, the confiscation and penalties were not justified.

3. Validity of Penalties in Absence of Revised MRP/RSP Rules:

The tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to provide evidence that the MRP declared by the manufacturer was altered by them or that the dealers sold the tiles at a higher price knowingly. The tribunal emphasized that without evidence of who altered the MRP, the manufacturers could not be held liable for duty or penalties. The absence of any seized goods with altered MRP during the investigation further weakened the Revenue's case. The tribunal cited previous judgments, including Acme Ceramics and Suzuki Ceramics, which supported the view that penalties could not be imposed without a legal basis for revising MRP/RSP during the relevant period.

Conclusion:

The tribunal found that the lack of provision for revising MRP/RSP prior to 01/03/2008 was detrimental to the Revenue's case. The appeals were allowed, and the confiscation, fines, and penalties were set aside. The tribunal reiterated that without a demand for duty, penalties and fines could not be imposed, aligning with precedents set in cases like Mono Acrylic Manufacturing Company and Godrej Soaps. The decision was pronounced in open court, allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

← Previous Next →