9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G.K. Mittal is the Director of OSL. Since during the period of dispute, colour TV was notified under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, duty was being paid by OSL on the CTVs being manufactured by them on the assessable value determined under Section 4A i.e. declared MRP minus abatement. A case of duty evasion was booked against OSL alleging that - (a) duty of Rs. 1,54,575/- has been evaded on 141 CTVs found short at the time of officer's visit to the factory; and (b) duty of Rs. 15,50,813/- has been evaded in respect of CTV models No. 20 JX, 14 ON, TVES 14, 14 ZC and 14 ZD manufactured and cleared by OSL by misdeclaring their MRP in connivance with MEL, as CTVs of these models were sold to ultimate customers at MRPs higher t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that allegation of duty evasion against OSL is without any basis, that he has challenged the Tribunal's Final Order No. 804/2010-EX., dated 23-11-2010 before Hon'ble Supreme Court, that there is no justification for penalty on Shri G.K. Mittal, Director, OSL, as OSL, as manufacturer had no control over the price at which the CTVs were sold by the dealers to the retail customers and, therefore, neither any duty can be demanded from OSL on the basis of higher MRP nor any penalty can be imposed on OSL and its Director, that in this regard, he relies upon judgment of the Apex Court in case of ITC Ltd. v. Union of India, [2004 (171) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)] that MEL have not dealt with any excisable goods which he knew or had reason to believe were li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri G.K. Mittal, Director OSL and MEL under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is linked with the question of duty demand against OSL and imposition of penalty on OSL on the basis of allegation of clandestine removal of CTVs without payment of duty and short payment of duty on certain models of CTVs by misdeclaring their MRP. The duty demand against OSL has been upheld vide Final Order No. 804/2011-EX., dated 23-11-2010. In view of this, Shri G.K. Mittal, would also stand accused of knowingly dealing with the goods which he knew were liable for confiscation and as such the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed on him under Rule 209A has to be upheld. 7. As regards MEL, it is seen that it is MEL who was controlling the marketing of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
