TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ejecting the assessable value and the Retail Sale Price [RSP] declared by M/s. Shahji Associates [appellant] in the Bills of Entry and confirming demand of differential duty of Rs. 56,21,649/- under section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 [Act] along with interest under section 28AA of the Act and imposition of penalties under section 114A and 114AA of the Act is assailed by the appellant in this appeal. 2. The appellant imported 'Little Tree' brand Car Air Freshener Paper Tag and paid basic customs duty on the value declared by it and Additional Duty of Customs on the RSP declared by it. Additional Duty of Customs is to be paid equivalent to the Central Excise Duty payable on similar goods if manufactured in India. In respect of some not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lared RSP/MRP and determine it as per Rule 4(b) of Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2008 [SCN] and to reject the declared assessable value under Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules and re-determine it under Rules 5 and 7 of the Valuation Rules. It was also proposed to recover differential duty under Section 28(4) of the Act with interest and impose penalties. 6. The appellant resisted these proposals which were however, confirmed in the impugned order. Aggrieved, the appellant filed this appeal. Submissions of the appellant 7. Dr. G K Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions: (i) The appellant imports goods and sells them through Maruti and through som....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....warehouse or attach a price tag with much higher price and sell it and that he will not be liable to pay additional duty of customs on the RSP so declared in the price tag. Therefore, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Submissions of the Revenue 8. Shri Grijesh Kumar, learned authorized representative for the Revenue vehemently supported the impugned order and submitted as follows: (i) There is no dispute that the imported goods were liable to Additional Duty of Customs based on RSP. They were not meant for sale to Industrial Consumers or to Institutional Consumers in which case the assessment will not be on the basis of RSP. (ii) The appellant should have imported the goods with price tags or affixed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Bills of Entry. The tags recovered in the warehouse of the appellant showed the correct RSP which was about ten times the RSP declared in the Bills of Entry. 11. The contention of the appellant on this issue is since labelling and relabelling amounts to manufacture, by affixing the labels with a higher RSP, the appellant was effectively manufacturing a new product and the RSP declared in these labels cannot be applied to the Bill of Entry. 12. We find that this is like a person who killed both his parents and pleaded for mercy on the ground that he was an orphan. The appellant should have, strictly speaking, fixed the correct price tags before import or at least fixed them before clearing the goods for home consumption. Nevertheles....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod of limitation could not be invoked in this case because the appellant was of the honest opinion that he could declare a low RSP in the Bills of Entry and actually fix price tags with many times the price being the correct RSP. We find this argument untenable. If the appellant felt that he could wilfully, deliberately, mis-declare the RSP on the Bills of Entry and get away with it, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination be called an honest belief. It is but a deliberate, planned mis-declaration of RSP. 16. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the re-assessment, confirmation of demand of duty invoking extended period of limitation. 17. Penalties under sections 114A and 114AA have been imposed. Section 114A provides fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d or increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, then, for the purposes of this section, the duty or interest as reduced or increased, as the case may be, shall be taken into account: Provided also that in case where the duty or interest determined to be payable is increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, then, the benefit of reduced penalty under the first proviso shall be available if the amount of the duty or the interest so increased, along with the interest payable thereon under section 28AA, and twenty-five percent of the consequential increase in penalty have also been paid within thirty days of the communication ....