9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from OSL on the basis of higher MRP nor any penalty can be imposed on OSL and its Director Held that:- As concluding from the facts of the case Director would also stand accused of knowingly dealing with the goods which he knew were liable for confiscation and as such the penalty. MEL who was controlling the marketing of the CTVs of ONIDA brand manufactured by OSL and it is MEL who were communicating the MRP to OSL for being declared to Central Excise Department and on the basis of which assessable value was to be determined and was also circulating the price lists to various dealers containing the retail prices at which various models were to be sold. MEL have also dealt with the goods in respect of which they knew that full duty liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 20/Addl. Commissioner/03, dated 30-7-2003 confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 17,05,388/- against OSL along with interest under Section 11AB, and imposed penalty of equal amount on OSL under Section 11AC, besides confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery of M/s. OSL under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Beside this, penalty under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was imposed among other persons, on MEL (penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-) and Shri G.K. Mittal (penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-). 1.2 On appeals being filed by OSL, MEL and Shri G.K. Mittal before CCE (Appeals), the same were dismissed vide Order-in-Appeal No. 212, 213 and 214/APPL/NOIDA/2004, dated 23-7-2004. 1.3 Against the above order of CCE (Appeals), th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er declared in connivance with MEL and that in view of this, the impugned order upholding penalty on MEL and Shri G.K. Mittal, Director, OSL is not sustainable. 4. Shri S.R. Meena, the learned Senior Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of CCE (Appeals) in it and emphasised that - (a) while the CTVs of the ONIDA brand were being manufactured by OSL, it is MEL, a group company who owned the ONIDA brand and marketed the CTVs and entire production of CTVs of OSL was being cleared to MEL; (b) OSL was charging from MEL only the cost of raw material, manufacturing charges and duties leviable and for calculation of assessable value, MRP was being communicated by MEL to OSL; (c) M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue was to be determined and was also circulating the price lists to various dealers containing the retail prices at which various models were to be sold. In view of this, MEL cannot be unaware of the fact that in respect of certain models of CTVs, the MRP declared for the purpose of Section 4A and the MRP at which the CTVs were actually being sold were different. Thus, MEL have also dealt with the goods in respect of which they knew that full duty liability has not been discharged and for this reason, the same are liable for confiscation. Therefore penalty on MEL has also been correctly imposed under Rule 209A. 8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in these appeals. The same are dismissed. (Pronounced in the ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
