TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals Dismissed, Directors Penalized, Biscuit Supply Ruled Non-Eligible</h1> <h3>M/s Bajaj Food Products (P) Ltd., Shri Arvind Maheshwari, Director, Shri AD. Bajaj, Managing Director Versus CCE, Rohtak</h3> M/s Bajaj Food Products (P) Ltd., Shri Arvind Maheshwari, Director, Shri AD. Bajaj, Managing Director Versus CCE, Rohtak - 2015 (317) E.L.T. 116 (Tri. - ... Issues:Assessment under Section 4A for supplies to MCD, Interpretation of MRP requirement, Allegation of suppression of facts, Imposition of penalties on directors.Assessment under Section 4A for supplies to MCD:The case involved the confirmation of a demand for duty on clearances of biscuits made to MCD under a contract. The appellants contended that the clearances fell under Section 4A due to the MRP printed on packages. They cited judgments and interpretations to support their position. However, the tribunal found that the supplies did not conform to the SWM (PC) Rules as the package weights were not in line with the specified quantities. Previous judgments highlighted that supplies to institutional buyers do not require MRP printing. The tribunal concluded that the biscuits were not eligible for assessment under Section 4A.Interpretation of MRP requirement:The appellants argued that the MRP printed on packages was valid as per their contract with MCD. However, the tribunal determined that the printed price was not a true MRP as it did not comply with SWM (PC) Rules. The tribunal emphasized that the price was negotiated considering the free supply of wheat by MCD, making the printed figure misleading. The tribunal rejected the appellants' attempt to distinguish their case from previous judgments and upheld that the printed price was not MRP.Allegation of suppression of facts:The tribunal found evidence of suppression of facts as the appellants did not disclose the free supply of wheat from MCD, which influenced the pricing. The deliberate attempt to claim the printed price as MRP for duty assessment indicated an intent to evade duty. The tribunal held that the appellants, including the directors, were aware of and allowed this practice, leading to penalties and confiscation of goods for duty evasion.Imposition of penalties on directors:The tribunal upheld the penalties imposed on the directors for their involvement in the suppression of facts and evasion of duty. The directors' knowledge and facilitation of the misleading pricing scheme demonstrated their culpability in the evasion, leading to the affirmation of penalties by the tribunal.In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the demand for duty, penalties on the directors, and the decision that the biscuits supplied to MCD were not eligible for assessment under Section 4A. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with SWM (PC) Rules and transparency in pricing to prevent duty evasion.
TaxTMI 