2018 (10) TMI 1060 - AT - Central Excise

Commissioner (Appeals) drops penalties in goods valuation case, focusing on lack of mala fide intent.

Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Noida Versus M/s Continental Milkose India Ltd.

The Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the penalty imposed on the appellant in a case involving the valuation of goods supplied to defense and stock transfer ... Waiver of Penalty - penalty was set aside on the ground that there was no mala fide on the part of the assessee - valuation of the goods supplied to defence as also in respect of stock transfer - whether the demand is required to be paid under Section 4 or 4A? - Held that:- As against the finding of the Appellate Authority as regards absence of any mensrea on the part of the assessee, Revenue has not advanced any evidence to rebut the same. The said finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) does not stand rebutted by the Revenue by production of any evidence - there are no reasons to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues involved: Penalty imposition, valuation of goods supplied to defense, stock transfer under Section 4 or 4A.Penalty Imposition:The appellant challenged the penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a case involving the valuation of goods supplied to defense and stock transfer under Section 4 or 4A. The Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the penalty, citing the absence of mala fide intent on the part of the assessee. The Commissioner held that the appellant was not liable to affix the MRP on goods supplied to defense and that stock transfer to Guwahati should be assessed under Section 4A. The Commissioner emphasized that the department failed to prove intent for duty evasion, as the appellant cleared goods based on invoices, submitted returns on time, and operated under a bona fide belief. Citing legal precedents, the Commissioner highlighted that penalty is typically levied for contumacious conduct or deliberate violation of statutes. The Commissioner also noted that in cases of bona fide disputes over legal interpretations, penalties cannot be imposed. The Commissioner concluded that the appellant's belief was justified, and the department failed to prove mens rea. The appellant promptly rectified errors by affixing MRP, and the department's comparison with Horlicks' MRP was deemed inappropriate. Lack of evidence showing undervaluation or receipt of additional amounts led to the rejection of penalty imposition.Valuation of Goods:The issue of valuation arose concerning goods supplied to defense and stock transfer to Guwahati. The Commissioner determined that MRP need not be affixed on goods supplied to defense, as they were not subject to the SWM Act. Regarding stock transfer to Guwahati, assessment under Section 4A was mandated. The Commissioner emphasized that the appellant's belief that goods were not liable under Section 4A was bona fide, supported by the absence of mens rea. The appellant's correction of errors and lack of evidence showing undervaluation or receipt of additional amounts led to the conclusion that penalty imposition was unwarranted. The Commissioner's decision was upheld as the Revenue failed to provide evidence rebutting the absence of mens rea, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of penalty imposition and valuation of goods, emphasizing the Commissioner's findings on bona fide belief, absence of intent for duty evasion, and lack of evidence supporting penalty imposition.