Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ideal Chemicals

Commissioner of Central Excise vs ideal Chemicals

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 31, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/15513

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/15513
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Mar 31, 1999
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

ideal Chemicals

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(114)ELT31TriDel

Excerpt

.....passed the order in their favour and the additional collector, aurangabad had also refunded the amount of duty to the respondents. we therefore, heard sh.h.k. jain, ld. sdr and perused the records.3.1 ld. sdr submitted that the respondents were manufacturing p or p medicine which were marketed by m/s. wellcare laboratories pvt. ltd. after printing their monogram on the labels/cartons of p or p medicines. the asstt. collector under four different orders denied the benefit of notification no. 175/86 and confirmed the demand of central excise duty. however, on appeal, ld. collector (a) held that the exemption cannot be denied if m/s. welicare laboratories pvt. ltd. are treated as a manufacturer they would be entitled to exemption as their turnover was not more than rs. 7.5 lacs. the collector (a) directed that the asstt. collector should verify whether the turnover of m/s.wellcare lab. was within the limits specified under the notification.3.2 ld. sdr further mentions that m/s. wellcare laboratories pvt. ltd. were not manufacturer and as such the question of their enjoying the benefit of notification 175/86 does not arise. he referred to one of the reply dated 23-2-1991 of the respondents in which they had clearly mentioned that m/s. wellcare laboratories were only marketing the goods.4. after considering the submissions of the ld. dr and perusing the records, we agree with him that m/s. wellcare laboratories pvt. ltd., being not a manufacturer, cannot be considered to be eligible for the benefit of notification 175/86. the mischief of paragraph 7 of the notification is attracted as it provided that the benefit of notification would not be available if the specified goods are affixed with the brand name or trade name of any other person who is not eligible for the benefit of the notification. as it is not in dispute that monogram of another person was affixed on the cartons and labels of the medicine and they, being the dealer, were not entitled for the benefit of.....

Full Judgment

1. These are four appeals filed by the Revenue against the common order-in-appeal dated 8-9-1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Pune.

2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents M/s Ideal Chemicals, Nanded. However, there is a letter dated 8-12-1998 from Wellcare Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. with a request to decide the matter on its merits as Collector (A) has passed the order in their favour and the Additional Collector, Aurangabad had also refunded the amount of duty to the respondents. We therefore, heard Sh.

H.K. Jain, ld. SDR and perused the records.

3.1 Ld. SDR submitted that the respondents were manufacturing P or P medicine which were marketed by M/s. Wellcare Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. after printing their monogram on the labels/cartons of P or P medicines. The Asstt. Collector under four different orders denied the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 and confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty. However, on appeal, ld. Collector (A) held that the exemption cannot be denied if M/s. Welicare Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. are treated as a manufacturer they would be entitled to exemption as their turnover was not more than Rs. 7.5 Lacs. The Collector (A) directed that the Asstt. Collector should verify whether the turnover of M/s.

Wellcare Lab. was within the limits specified under the notification.

3.2 Ld. SDR further mentions that M/s. Wellcare Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. were not manufacturer and as such the question of their enjoying the benefit of Notification 175/86 does not arise. He referred to one of the reply dated 23-2-1991 of the respondents in which they had clearly mentioned that M/s. Wellcare Laboratories were only marketing the goods.

4. After considering the submissions of the ld. DR and perusing the records, we agree with him that M/s. Wellcare Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., being not a manufacturer, cannot be considered to be eligible for the benefit of Notification 175/86. The mischief of paragraph 7 of the notification is attracted as it provided that the benefit of notification would not be available if the specified goods are affixed with the brand name or trade name of any other person who is not eligible for the benefit of the notification. As it is not in dispute that monogram of another person was affixed on the cartons and labels of the medicine and they, being the dealer, were not entitled for the benefit of notification. The exemption was not available to the impugned goods. All the appeals are therefore allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs ideal Chemicals Same Subject Land Acquisition