9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss of buyer is not examined and insisted upon at time of importation, it would not be possible to ensure that conditions of packaged commodities would be followed subsequently – Therefore, treatment of appellant as trader as done by impugned order seems to be correct view – Admittedly show cause notice was issued on 25-6-2013 i.e. that out of 9 months of 2012-2013, demand for first three months has to be reduced – Therefore, approximately liability that would arise on appellant is about ₹ 25 lakhs – Even though financial difficulty was mentioned during hearing, no documentary evidence was produced to show any financial difficulties – Under said circumstances, appellant directed to deposit amount – There shall be waiver of pre-deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31-12-2012. The total amount demanded is ₹ 2,22,72,030/- with interest and penalty has been imposed under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 and ₹ 50 lakhs under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. 2. The learned Counsel submits that the very same issue had come up for consideration and the department had initiated proceedings against the appellant in 2004 and the Deputy Commissioner of Customs in his order passed in 2005 had dropped the proceedings and took a view that Rule 33 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1976 would be applicable to the appellant and the commodity imported by them were not in retail packages. It was submitted that there is no change at all in the situation from 2004 till ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stitutional consumer in terms of Rule 2A of erstwhile Rule or Rule 3 of present rules relating to packaged commodities. He submits that there is no dispute that the appellant is a trader. Therefore, the demand on the ground of suppression and invocation of extended period and imposition of penalty has to be upheld. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The main issue as to whether the appellant being a trader can be considered as a manufacturer for the purpose of applicability of packaged commodity rules is open to different interpretations. One of the views that is possible is that the importer has to be treated with par with local manufacturer in view of the fact that additional Customs duty is levied to ensure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The show cause notice was issued on 25-6-2013. This would mean that out of 9 months of 2012-2013, the demand for the first three months has to be reduced. Therefore, approximately the liability that would arise on the appellant is about ₹ 25 lakhs. At this stage, the learned Counsel submits that the valuation is arbitrary and there has been no proper determination of the RSP. However, in the absence of alternate submission as to the correct RSP to be adopted, we are not in a position to consider this submission. It has to be noted that such alternative submission was not available even to the Commissioner. Even though financial difficulty was mentioned during the hearing, no documentary evidence was produced to show any financial di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
