V. Padmanabhan JUDGMENT
V. Padmanabhan, Member (T)
1. The present appeals have been filed against the Order-in-Original No. 28-33/D-I/2016 dated 28.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-I. The dispute covers the period June 2009 to February, 2003.
2. M/s. Trueline Appliances Private Limited (TAPL) and M/s. 3D International (3D) were engaged in the activity of importing and trading of various items like home appliances, shoes, furniture, hardware items, stationary items etc. Sh. Amit Talwar and Sh. Sumit Sehgal were the Directors of TAPL as well as Partners in 3D. The Departmental Officers carried out search operations at various premises associated with the TAPL as well as 3D and also residential premises of the Directors/Partners on 27.02.2013 and recovered various documents as well as pen drives, computers etc. Subsequently, searches were also conducted at the premises of various C & F agents as well as super stockists. Statements were recorded from Sh. Amit Talwar, Sh. Sumit Sehgal as well as various connected persons including Sh. Kamal Madan, Marketing Manager. At the time of search operations, various goods were also seized at the godown premises of TAPL as well as 3D. After completion of investigation of the alleged Central Excise duty evasion, show cause notice dated 08.07.2014 was issued. Separate show cause notices were also issued proposing confiscation of the seized goods. The case was adjudicated vide the impugned order in which duty demands were raised and penalty were imposed against TAPL, 3D, Directors and Partners. Penalties were also imposed on various C & F agents. The seized goods were ordered for confiscation. Aggrieved by the impugned order, appeals have been filed and all the appeals are being disposed of through this common order.
3. The goods imported and traded by TAPL as well as 3D during the impugned period are covered under Third Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Such goods are covered by Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which reads as follows:
"(f) "manufacture" includes any process-
(i) ...... ...... ......
(ii) ...... ...... .......
(iii) which in relation to the goods specified in the Third Schedule, involves packing or repacking of such goods in a unit container or labelling or re-labelling of containers including the declaration or alteration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer;"
4. The investigation carried out by the Department concluded that both TAPL as well as 3D have-
(i) Imported various goods bearing their brand name in which the MRP was not marked. Such goods, after importation were affixed with MRP sticker and sold in the local market;
(ii) Some consignments were imported in which MRP stickers were already affixed but post importation new MRP stickers were affixed and goods were sold in the local market;
(iii) Goods were procured from indigenous manufacturers, the MRP was changed and such goods were also sold at the enhanced MRP;
4.1 It is the allegation of Revenue that the activity of changing the MRP/affixing MRP stickers in their godown will fall within the deeming provision in Section 2(f)(iii) and consequently, Central Excise duty is required to be discharged in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, which has not been done by the appellant. Accordingly, after issue of show cause notice, demand of Central Excise duty stands confirmed which has been challenged in these appeals.
4.2 Both before the Adjudicating Authority as well as in the present appeal, the appellants are not challenging the s........