9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. CCE, Nashik [2013 (4) TMI 624 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], where it was held that the appellants are importing the impugned goods not for retail sale but for repacking, labelling and branding and selling the same in bulk to M/s. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. Therefore, they are not required to declare MRP in terms of Rule 3 of the said Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 as they are industrial c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand of CVD on the goods imported by the appellant. 4. Appellant had imported K Ultra Fine Putty and classified the same under Chapter Heading No.3214 and declared an assessable value. The appellants paid the applicable customs duty and also paid the CVD based upon such value and duty liability. It is the case of the Revenue that the said goods which were imported were in pack size 250 gms., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not adduced any contrary evidence to show that appellant was not repacking the imported goods into 500 gms. pack and was in fact reselling the imported goods in the pack size in which they were imported. It is also not controverted by the Revenue as regards the appellant s claim that they are discharging central excise duty on the goods after repacking and relabeling, based upon MRP. On the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for repacking, labelling and branding and selling the same in bulk to M/s. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. Therefore, they are not required to declare MRP in terms of Rule 3 of the said Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 as they are industrial consumers. This position has been further clarified by DGFT vide notification dated 22-1-2001 wherein it has been clearly stated that import of raw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fiscation of goods under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 are also not justified. Consequently, the question of payment of redemption fine would not arise and also no penal consequence would follow under Section 112(a) ibid. 6. It can be seen from the above reproduced ratio that the issue in hand is the same, hence we hold that impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
