https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384192 Goods bearing MRP markings were treated as intended for retail sale, so valuation under section 4A applied notwithstanding the claim of principal-to-principal clearance or contract manufacture. The plea of bona fide belief failed because there was no tenable legal basis to exclude the goods from section 4A or the brand-name restriction, and the demand was not barred by limitation. The small scale exemption was denied because the goods bore another entity's brand name and the statutory conditions were not met. Confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under section 11AC were upheld, but the adjudication order had to provide the mandatory option of reduced penalty. en-us Mon, 05 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Aug 2019 07:50:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384192 Goods bearing MRP markings were treated as intended for retail sale, so valuation under section 4A applied notwithstanding the claim of principal-to-principal clearance or contract manufacture. The plea of bona fide belief failed because there was no tenable legal basis to exclude the goods from section 4A or the brand-name restriction, and the demand was not barred by limitation. The small scale exemption was denied because the goods bore another entity's brand name and the statutory conditions were not met. Confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under section 11AC were upheld, but the adjudication order had to provide the mandatory option of reduced penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384192