https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761858 CESTAT New Delhi set aside customs department's demand for differential duty and penalty against an importer accused of MRP mis-declaration. The tribunal found that Central Excise Rule 5 was wrongly invoked as it applies to manufacturers, not importers. Evidence showed MRP stickers were altered after goods reached domestic market through distributors, not by the appellant. Department failed to prove appellant's knowledge or involvement in alteration or any monetary benefit. Demand was based on presumptions without concrete evidence. Goods held not liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. Appeal allowed. en-us Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761858 CESTAT New Delhi set aside customs department's demand for differential duty and penalty against an importer accused of MRP mis-declaration. The tribunal found that Central Excise Rule 5 was wrongly invoked as it applies to manufacturers, not importers. Evidence showed MRP stickers were altered after goods reached domestic market through distributors, not by the appellant. Department failed to prove appellant's knowledge or involvement in alteration or any monetary benefit. Demand was based on presumptions without concrete evidence. Goods held not liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761858