Appellant liable for mis-declaration of MRP on imported bulbs, ordered to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs within six weeks.

The tribunal found the appellant liable for mis-declaration of MRP on imported bulbs, directing a deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs within six weeks to address revenue prejudice. The appellant's objections regarding detained goods were dismissed, with the tribunal requiring compliance with the deposit order for an expedited appeal hearing. The stay application was disposed of, contingent on complying with the deposit order, emphasizing adherence to order conditions for maintaining the stay and pursuing the appeals effectively.

---

---

Issues: Mis-declaration of MRP on imported bulbs, duty demand, fraudulent stickers, compliance with the order, detention of goods, stay application

Mis-declaration of MRP on imported bulbs:
The appellant contested the duty demand of Rs. 86,34,821 based on mis-declaration of MRP on imported bulbs. The appellant's counsel argued that there was no evidence to prove mis-declaration. However, the impugned order revealed that the MRP declared during import was replaced by stickers post-import, as highlighted in the adjudication order. The appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the presence of fraudulent stickers found during the investigation. The tribunal inferred that the appellant likely benefited from the higher-value stickers, indicating a questionable modus operandi. Consequently, the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs within six weeks to address the prejudicial impact on revenue.

Compliance with the order and detention of goods:
The appellant raised objections regarding goods worth Rs. 1 crore detained by the department, claiming that they were in the appellant's custody as a state custodian. The tribunal dismissed this plea, emphasizing that the appellant was litigating without resolving the issue of detained goods. The appellant's counsel requested an expedited appeal hearing, which the tribunal agreed to facilitate upon compliance with the deposit order. The tribunal made it clear that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of both appeals.

Stay application:
The tribunal disposed of the stay application subject to the condition of complying with the deposit order. Non-compliance would lead to the dismissal of both appeals. The tribunal stressed the importance of adhering to the conditions set forth in the order to maintain the stay and pursue the appeals effectively.

---