TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged commodity and there was no MRP/RSP label as these parts/components were meant for after sales or replacement. The cause of action for the above demand is as described in the SCN dated 30.05.2013; and the period involved is April 2010 to November 2011. 2. Heard Sri D. Santhana Gopalan, ld. Advocate, for the Appellant-Assessee and Sri Anoop Singh, ld. Joint Commissioner for the Respondent-Revenue. 3. Sri Santhana Gopalan invited our attention to documents placed on record viz., 2 Show Cause Notices [dated 05.04.2013 & 22.04.2013] issued for the period April 2010 to November 2011 by the DGCEI proposing to demand duty alleging that the activity of packing and re-packing amounted to 'Manufacture'. Insofar as the SCN dated 22.04.2013 is con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which, the RSP is required to be declared on the pre-packed commodities where '.... the packages are intended for retail sales; The packages do not contain quantity of more than 25 kgs or 25 litres; the packaged commodities are not meant for industrial consumers or institutional consumers ....' 3.2 It is his case that the imported goods were not required to be affixed with RSP label since none of the above conditions was fulfilled. He would explain that the imported goods were not retail packages as they were sold after repacking, relabeling etc. Moreover, the imported goods were sold to 'industrial consumers' after repacking / re-labelling which activity was held to be 'manufacture' and hence, MRP/RSP based assessment of the imported good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of the Appellant as to the undertaking the activity of manufacture has been discussed in the OIO and therefore the arguments of the Appellant has no legal force. He would place reliance on the following judicial pronouncement: NITCO Tiles Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai - 2015 (8) TMI 192 - CESTAT Mumbai (LB) = 2015 (325) ELT A202 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused carefully the documents placed on record. Upon hearing both sides, we find that the issues to be decided by us are: (1) Whether the demand confirmed on the MRP basis in the impugned order is sustainable? And (2) Whether there was sufficient material for the Revenue to allege suppression & to demand duty by invoking the extended period o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taining a commodity indicating the specific packaging for the exclusive use of any industry as raw material or for the purpose of servicing any industry, mine or query is concerned. There is no dispute that the Appellant affixes on all the packages the stamp 'for industrial use only'. 7. The Appellant in this regard has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of EWAC Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India [2012 (275) ELT 193 (Kar)] wherein, it was held that the SWM Act/LM Act being a consumer protection legislation as evidenced by the objects and reasons of the Act, the term 'consumer' shall be construed in its ordinary meaning so as to extend the benefit of the legislation; that the Act is meant only for an indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f limitation cannot sustain as it is clear a case of interpretation. 11. The extended period of limitation could be invoked in terms of the proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act, where a duty of customs has been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid by reason of fraud, collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or Rules issued thereunder. 12. The larger period of limitation is not invokable in the instant case inasmuch as the Appellant has not suppressed or mis-declared any facts much less with an intention to evade payment of duty. Bonafide / good faith by a Government PSU cannot be doubted, especially when there was lis although on a different iss....