9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the issue of labelling of consignment was before the Division Bench of this Tribunal or was given relief of to the party at any stage earlier, before the contest in the Tribunal. Since, the decision delivered does not show any context on the point of RSP, it will be reasonable for this Court to conclude that the same was not agitated to the prejudice of the party by the department. As far as, the issue of classification is concerned even from the judgment, it is clear that it has gone in favour of the importer, therefore, the main party stands exonerated of the charges. The question of any allegation sustaining against the CHA, therefore, does not arise. The decision cited by the learned advocate are clearly in support of the proposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g details of RSP although goods did not bear stickers/labels bearing such details. 2. Ld. Adjudicating Authority dropped the demand by holding that goods were correctly classified under CTH 1704 (as against 2106 proposed in the SCN). He also dropped penal proceedings against the appellant on the ground that the appellant had no means to verify whether the individual packages inside the containers had the required stickers/labels. Department filed appeal before Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who, vide impugned order reversed the order of Ld. Adjudicating Authority and allowed the appeal filed by department on classification. He also held that the appellant was liable to penalty under Section 112 (a) and remanded the matter to lower authority t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iterates the findings specially Para 10.4 to 10.6 reproduced below of the impugned order and states further that in case law cited by the appellant reported in 2020 (371) ELT 309 (Tri-Ahm.) (supra) issue of non-fixing of M.R.P was not decided specifically. Para "10.4 I do not agree with the contention of the adjudicating authority that there was no mala fide intention of the importer for not fixing such labels and therefore did not that impose any penalty as not fixing the labels on the individual retail sale unit amounts to wrong and false declaration of RSP at the time of filing bill of entry, thus indulging in deliberate misstatement making the importer (Respondent 1) liable to penalty under Section 114A and 112(a) of the Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It finds that the case against the main party on the issue of Notification was decided in 2020 (371) ELT 309 (Tri.-Ahm.). However, the contents of the decision in the matter of M/s. Magnum Chocolatier Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad as reported in 2020 (371) ELT 309 (Tri. - Ahmd.) do not indicate whether the issue of labelling of consignment was before the Division Bench of this Tribunal or was given relief of to the party at any stage earlier, before the contest in the Tribunal. Since, the decision delivered on 27.09.2019 does not show any context on the point of RSP, it will be reasonable for this Court to conclude that the same was not agitated to the prejudice of the party by the department. As far as, the issue of classificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
