TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 51
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The case of the Revenue as is evident from the records is that for violation of the rules relating to Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, wherein, there was non-declaration of MRP on the packaged goods, which is mandatory and, therefore, after issue of show cause notice, the confiscated goods were allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- and penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Against the said order, the appellant/importer filed appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who, vide order dated 21.9.2011, held that since there was no mala fide intention on the part of the appellant/importer to evade duty and since there is no revenue loss to the Government, relying upon the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appeals). 5. On an appeal against the said order by the Revenue, the Tribunal found that mobile phones worth Rs. 37 Lakhs were imported on RSP value, which had been declared, but MRP not having been affixed on the packaged cartons, for violation of the rules pertaining to Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, redemption fine along with penalty is imposable and, accordingly, considering the gravity of the offence, redemption fine was increased from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- and penalty was increased from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said enhancement of redemption fine and penalty, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/importer. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ission of the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue that display of MRP as mandated by the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 having not been done, the commodities were confiscated and by virtue of the powers envisaged under Section 125 of the Act, on payment of redemption fine and penalty, the same were released for clearance. Therefore, the act of the Revenue is fully justified and, therefore, no interference is called for with the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials available on record as also the relevant provision of law on which reliance has been placed by the parties. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion of law being that the general public should not be taken for granted by the seller by charging exorbitant prices. The public have a right to know the price at which the product can be sold, so that unjust enrichment by the seller is prohibited. With the avowed object in mind, the rules have been framed for displaying the MRP on the packaged commodity. 13. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that they have declared RSP and duties have been calculated and collected by the authorities, it is to be noted that as per the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, it is mandatory on the part of the dealer to display the MRP on the packaged commodity. In the case on hand....