https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220140 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. en-us Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:05:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220140 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220140