Celkon Impex Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Hyderabad)
The appeal concerns whether the appellant wrongly discharged Countervailing Duty (CVD) on imported cellular phones by allegedly mis-declaring the Retail Sale Price (RSP) at the time of import and subsequently altering the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) after customs clearance. The adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand of differential duty, ordered confiscation of goods, and imposed penalties on the appellant, its dealer, and certain individuals.
The department’s case was based on a market survey and intelligence inputs suggesting that the appellant declared an RSP below ₹2,000 at the time of import to attract lower CVD, and thereafter, higher MRP labels were affixed post-clearance. The adjudicating authority relied on photographs from the survey, statements of individuals, and the appellant’s annual report to conclude that the appellant and its dealer were related entities and had conspired to evade duty.
The appellant contested the findings, arguing that it had no role in altering the MRP and that the dealer was an independent entity. It was submitted that there was no evidence of any financial flow back or mutuality of interest to establish a related-party relationship. The appellant further contended that the adjudication order relied on documents not cited in the show cause notice and that the demand was based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence. It was also argued that Rule 5 of the Central Excise Rules, 2008, was not applicable as the appellant was neither a manufacturer nor engaged in altering the RSP.
