9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s seventy four thousand five hundred and ninety two only) as differential duty against M/s. Viacom Electronics Pvt Ltd., along with imposition of personal penalty of identical amount under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In addition, an amount of Rs. 10,20,000/ (Rupees ten lakhs twenty thousand only) stands confirmed against the said applicant by rejecting the Modvat credit in terms of provisions of rule 57-I(5) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 along with imposition of personal penalty of identical amount under Rule 57-I(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. In addition, personal penalties of varying amounts ranging from Rs. 1 crore to Rs.5 crores have been imposed upon the other applicants under the provisions of Rule 209A of Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove, proceedings were initiated against the manufacturer M/s. Viacom Electronics Pvt. Ltd., raising demand of duty in terms of Serial No. 229(ii) of Notification No. 5/98-CE instead of Serial No. 229(i). It may be mentioned here that Serial No. (ii) of 229 of the Notification in question prescribes specific rates of duty on Colour Television Sets, where the same are not affixed with maximum retail price. The revenue stand is that inasmuch as the retail sale price affixed on the said Colour Television Sets have been found to be incorrect and as such, definition of the same as appearing in explanation to the said Notification is not applicable, the duty liability is required to be discharged by the said manufacturer in terms of the Serial No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification No. 5/98-CE, and in such case, duty has to be worked out at the specific rates prescribed under which clause (ii) of Serial No. 229 of the said Notification. 7. Ld. Advocate has also argued that once the goods are specified under section 4A and are affixed with maximum retail price, they have to be assessed in terms of the said declaration made. However, on being asked that in an identical sets of facts and circumstances, the appellant has accepted enhancement of maximum retail sale price declared on the Television Sets manufactured by M/s. Viacom Electronics Pvt Ltd., Ld. Advocate fairly agrees that vide order No. 1040-42/05-EX, dated 12-12-2005 [2006 (197) E.L.T. 76 (Tri.)] passed by the Tribunal in their own case, appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
