Revised MRP must be declared from the notified date; penalty may be reduced for bona fide legal misinterpretation.

Failure to declare the revised maximum retail price after the buyer's pricing instruction was treated as a breach of Section 4A because the revised price operated from the notified date, and the continued use of cartons bearing the old printed price did not defer that legal effect. The duty demand and finding of liability were therefore sustained. The penalty was nevertheless reduced because the goods were cleared against proper documents, fully reflected in statutory records, and the short payment arose from a bona fide legal misinterpretation rather than concealment or unaccounted removal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the non-declaration of the revised maximum retail price for colour televisions after the buyer's revision instruction amounted to violation of Section 4A, justifying confirmation of duty and penalty; (ii) whether the penalty imposed required reduction in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the non-declaration of the revised maximum retail price for colour televisions after the buyer's revision instruction amounted to violation of Section 4A, justifying confirmation of duty and penalty.

Analysis: The goods were sold under the brand owner's pricing structure, and the revised price was stated to take effect from the notified date across the country. The fact that cartons still bore the old printed price did not postpone the legal effect of the revised price. Clearing the goods without reflecting the revised MRP therefore constituted non-declaration of the correct price for purposes of valuation under Section 4A.

Conclusion: The confirmation of duty was upheld and the finding of violation of Section 4A was sustained against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed required reduction in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The goods were cleared against proper documents and were fully accounted for in the statutory records. The short payment arose from a mistaken interpretation of the legal position rather than from concealment or removal outside record.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000 in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and finding of liability were maintained, but the penal consequence was substantially scaled down, resulting in only partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the revised maximum retail price takes effect from the notified date, failure to declare that revised price attracts liability under Section 4A notwithstanding the continued presence of old printed cartons, though penalty may be moderated where the clearance was duly documented and the default arose from a bona fide legal misinterpretation.

---