Penalty for dealing in goods liable to confiscation upheld where MRP misdeclaration and marketing control showed awareness of evasion.

Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustained where the Director was found connected with goods involved in the manufacturer's clandestine removal and MRP misdeclaration, and the underlying duty demand had already been upheld. The brand-owner marketing company was also held liable because it controlled marketing, communicated the MRP for declaration, and circulated price lists, showing awareness that the declared MRP and actual retail price differed for some models. On those facts, both parties were treated as having dealt with goods liable to confiscation, and the penalties were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the penalty imposed on the Director of the manufacturer under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable in the facts of alleged clandestine removal and misdeclaration of MRP. (ii) Whether the penalty imposed on the brand-owner marketing company under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable on the ground that it controlled marketing and communicated the MRP for assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether the penalty imposed on the Director of the manufacturer under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable in the facts of alleged clandestine removal and misdeclaration of MRP.

Analysis: The duty demand against the manufacturer had already been upheld. On that basis, the Director was treated as having knowingly dealt with goods liable to confiscation. The penalty under Rule 209A therefore depended on the established liability arising from the manufacturer's evasion and the director's connection with the offending goods.

Conclusion: The penalty on the Director was upheld and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed on the brand-owner marketing company under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable on the ground that it controlled marketing and communicated the MRP for assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The brand-owner controlled marketing of the goods, communicated the MRP to the manufacturer for declaration before the department, and circulated price lists to dealers. On those facts, it was held that the company could not be unaware that the declared MRP and actual retail price differed in respect of some models, and that it had dealt with goods in respect of which the duty liability had not been fully discharged.

Conclusion: The penalty on the brand-owner company was upheld and the finding was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both penalties were sustained, and the appeals failed in their entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who knowingly deals with goods liable to confiscation, including where the factual matrix shows control over marketing and awareness of misdeclared MRP, is liable to penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

---