2004 (9) TMI 459 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacturer wins appeal against penalty and fine for incorrect pricing declaration, citing incomplete manufacturing proof.

The appeal involved a challenge against penalty and redemption fine imposed on a manufacturer of color television sets due to discrepancies in the ... Confiscation, fine and penalty - Accountal of goods Issues:Challenge of penalty and redemption fine imposition.Analysis:The appeal involved a challenge against the penalty and redemption fine imposed on the appellant, a manufacturer of color television sets. The Central Excise Officers observed discrepancies in the declaration of maximum retail price (M.R.P.) for TV sets, the absence of M.R.P. on cartons, and the detention and seizure of various goods. The Additional Commissioner confiscated certain goods and imposed a redemption fine and penalty, which were partially upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).The appellant argued that the V.C.Ps were not fully manufactured, as indicated in their communication before the show cause notice. The burden of proof was placed on the appellant to show the incomplete condition of the goods, which the Revenue failed to counter with any evidence. It was established that the M.R.P. was indeed printed on the C.T.V. cartons, and the differential duty was paid based on region-specific M.R.Ps declared by the appellant. Citing a precedent from the Karnataka High Court, it was emphasized that different retail sale prices on packages for various areas should be considered for valuation under the Central Excise Act.In response, the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing the lack of evidence provided by the appellant regarding the incomplete condition of the V.C.Ps. However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to substantiate their claim that the goods were fully manufactured and upheld the appellant's assertion regarding the M.R.P. declaration and duty payment based on region-specific prices. Relying on the Karnataka High Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that the confiscation of goods was unwarranted, leading to the setting aside of the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.