9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confiscation order in relation to other 7 receiver sets. He also reduced redemption fine from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- and reduced penalty imposed on the appellant MTAIL (now known as M/s. Panasonic AVC Network India Co. Ltd.) from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 50,000/-. 2. M/s. Panasonic AVC Network India Co. Ltd. [earlier known as M/s. Matsushita TV & Audio (I) Ltd.], the appellant herein, being aggrieved of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has preferred this appeal. 3. Briefly stated the facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that M/s. Matsushita TV & Audio (I) Ltd. (for short MTAIL), the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Panasonic Brand CTVs classifiable under sub-heading 8528 of Schedule to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department that M/s. Urbashi Sales Pvt. Ltd. had issued price circular to its dealers effective from 24-10-1997 and 1-8-1998 respectively wherein price of various models were declared as under :- Customer Price as per circular of M/s. Urbashi Sales Pvt. Ltd. Model W.E.F. 24-10-1997 W.E.F. 1-8-1998 14L3 12700 11490 20 L3 16900 15490 21E2 18700 17990 20S70 17600 17490 21L10C 20700 19990 21V50 20500 19990 21V50CV 21900 21S90 22100 22990 21S100 23600 23990 25L10C 27700 27990 21E1 17600 15990 29S100 41600 42990 25S100 30990 7. The above referred price circular issued by M/s. Urvashi Sales Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. NPIL revealed that sale price declared in those circulars was higher than the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order. 12. Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned order is based upon incorrect appreciation of law and facts. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the appellant took us through Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and submitted that Section 4A empowers the Central Government to specify any goods by notification in the Official Gazette on which manufacturer would be required to declare maximum retail sale price and in such cases, the valuation of those specified goods for the purpose of excise duty would be deemed to be MRP declared on the said goods less such amount of abatement, if any, allowed by notification in the Official Gazette. Learned Counsel submitted that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly concluded that the appellant has misdeclared MRP at the time of clearance of the goods and the penalty has been rightly imposed on the appellant MTAIL, the predecessor of the appellant-company. 14. We have considered the rival submission and perused the records. Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 which was introduced by way of amendment with effect from 14-5-1997 reads thus :- Section 4A. Valuation of Excisable goods with reference to retail sale price. - (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify any goods, in relation to which it is required, under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) or the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, packing, forwarding and the like, as the case may be, and the price is the sole consideration for such sale. Explanation 2. - (a) Where on the package of any excisable goods more than one retail price is declared, the maximum of such retail sale price shall be deemed to be the retail sale price for the purposes of this section." 15. On reading of the above, it is evident that Section 4A confers power on the Central Government to require by way of notification in the Official Gazette, the manufacturer of notified goods to declare maximum retail sale price on the goods or on its package and in that case the valuation of the specified goods for the purpose of payment of excise duty would be maximum retail price declared on the goods or on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6690, date of packing as September, 1997, the MRP printed is Rs. 10,900/- and in respect of another CTV Model No. TC-20L3 having S.No. RK7312923328 packed in May, 1997, MRP printed is Rs. 14,350/-. Which printed MRP as seen in the photographs is tallied with the MRP declared by the assessee at the time of removal of the goods from the factory. This gives an impression that there was no misdeclaration of MRP by the appellant/assessee. 16. Other ground on which the appellate authority has concluded that misdeclaration of MRP is the price circulars seized during the investigation where in retail price of CTVs is more than price declared at the time of clearance of the goods from the factory. We find it difficult to agree with the aforesaid co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
