M/s Ganesh Bath Gallery vs C.C.(Preventive)

Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has dropped the demand of differential duty in respect of

imported ceramic tiles, but has upheld the confiscation of the same with option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.2 Lakhs and

has upheld the imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/- the appellant has filed the present appeal.

For better appreciation of the reasons adopted by Commissioner (Appeals) the relevant paragraph is reproduced below:

“As regards the second issue is concerned, it is not disputed by the Appellants that MRP stickers were not found on many packets in

respect of the goods imported and laying on their go-downs. It may not possible that by any reasons what so ever, some stickers may get

withered away, but the same cannot happen in large number of packets as is the case here. So the reasons given by the Appellants in this

regard are not acceptable, which is nothing but a cock and bull story. This fact also proves the point that Appellant’s bonafide were not

clear in respect of goods relating to live consignments. In fact, it cannot be a co-incidence that in both the case MRP stickers were not

found on many packets and this goes against the Appellants. Thus, the charge of not complying with the provisions of Notification No.

2/2006-CE(NT) dated 1.03.2006, as amended read with Notification No. 44 (RE-2000/1/1997-2002) dated 24.11.2000 as amended and the

provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 3 of the Customs Tarrif Act, 1975 gets established. Accordingly,

the confiscation of the seized goods as per subject OIO is legal and proper. Since, all the Appellants are equally concerned for non-

complying with the provisions of the said notifications, they are liable for penalty under Section 112(a) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962,

as the case may be. Keeping in view of value of goods, the RF and penalty imposed are reasonableâ€​.

As is seen from above, the goods stand confiscated and penalty imposed on the technical ground that all the goods imported by the appellant were not

having MRP stickers. The Appellant Authority has himself observed that the stickers may get withered away on account of many reasons. In such

scenario, we find no justification for imparting any malafide to the appellant so as not to paste the MRP stickers on the goods. Accordingly, we set

aside the confiscation of the imported items as also imposition of penalty. Appeal is allowed in above terms.

(Pronounced in Court)