Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal is the classification of "Tiger Balm", manufactured by the respondents herein - whether under CET Sub-heading 3003.39 as a Ayurvedic medicament, attracting duty at the rate of 8%, as claimed by the manufacturers and upheld by the Commissioner, or under GET Sub-heading 3003.10 as F or P medicaments other than those medicines which are exclusively Ayurvedic...attracting duty at the rate of 15% for certain period and 16% thereafter, as contended by the Revenue. The period in dispute is December 1996 to February 2000.2. According to the Revenue the assessee has wrongly claimed (he-product as Ayurvedic Medicine for the reason that the product owed its origin to Chinese traditional medicine, and the formulations, brand name, logo, product goodwill etc. had been received under licence from M/s. Haw Par Healthcare Ltd. Singapore for exclusive manufacture, marketing and sale in India. The Singapore company is also the proprietary owner of the goods...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)(92)ECC478
1. These appeals arise out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai dt.6.6.2002. In the impugned order the Commissioner decided the issues arising out of two show cause notices both dt.2.5.2001 demanding differential duties. One notice is issued to M/s. E.Merck (India) Ltd. Raigad, and another one to M/s. E. Merck (India) Ltd. Goa.2. There are two issues involved in the impugned order, one of classification of goods and the other whether or not the show cause notices are time barred.3. The appellants are holders of licences issued under Drugs and Cosmetics Act. They have two units one at Raigad and another at Goa.Among other medicaments both make Fixed Dose Combination of Vitamin B1, B6 & B12 called Neurobion Forte Tablets and Neurobion Injections.Admittedly they have been filing classification declarations under Rule 173B of Central Excise Rules claiming classification of their products under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, as medicaments. The department...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. Heard both sides at length on 1-2-2006, 6-2-2006 and 7-2-2006. Under the impugned order, customs duty demand of Rs. 8,48,16,660/- and excise duty demand of Rs. 14,13,208/-have been confirmed and penalties amounting to Rs. 8,84,16,660/- and Rs. 14,13,208/- have also been imposed.2. By written synopsis dated 24-3-2006, the Id. Advocate for the appellants has summarized his arguments as follows: The imported Ascorbic Acid - FCC grade IV and TMBA were relabeled by the appellants. A.1 The show cause notice (internal page 11, bottom page 318 of Vol.-II) reads as under: It is noticed that Shri Lalit Modi in his statement dated 4-1-2001, categorically stated that Ascorbic Acid IP. and TMBA were not actually manufactured in their factory. He further stated that the company sold the said goods imported by them, as such without doing any processing, in the very same drums in which the raw materials were received, after replacing the outer labels.... A.2 The appellants had affixed a label on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(83)LC68Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 7.12.1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order the Collector (Appeals) of Central Excise denied the benefit of notification No. 161/66-CE dated 8.10.1966 (as amended) to the appellants.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P & P Medicaments, and they filed the price list and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 161/66-CE. The price list was approved by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 16.11.1983 for the period April to June, 1983 alleging that the appellants were not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 161/66-CE. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. On appeal the Collector (Appeals) denied the benefit of the said notification.3. Learned Counsel for appellants submits that the Notification No.161/66-CE provides a discount of 25% on the price spe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1989)(20)LC262Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The revision application filed before the Government of India against the order No. 633 of 1981 dated 11-12- 1981 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The appellants imported amoxycillin trihydrate, a drug. It was in the Open General Licence during 1978-79 Policy period. However, the appellants' consignment arrived in India in June, 1979 by which time amoxycillin trihydrate stood canalised as per Appendix 9 of the Import Policy of 1979-80 and hence no longer in the OGL. The Collector ordered confiscation of the goods and had adjudged redemption fine of Rs. 5.24 lakhs. In appeal before the Central Board of Excise & Customs, the appellants relied on an earlier order in appeal of the Board (No.980/1980 dated 29-11- 1980) which, the appellants say also related to late shipment. Following the ratio of this earlier order, the Board reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thereupon, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. The issue for determination in this appeal is admissibility of benefit of exemption from the payment of duly to Dichloroquinoline (4.7 DEQ) falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 2942.00 in terms of Notification No. 35/91-C.E., dated 25th January, 1991 during the period from 6-1-95 to 26-3-95. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 17,,95,716/- (Rupees Twenty-seven lacs ninety-five thousand seven hundred sixteen only) against the Respondents on the ground that the benefit was available only with effect from 27th March, 1995 when they filed classification list claiming the benefit of Notification and imposed penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lacs only) on the assessee under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order on the ground that although the Notification No. 35/91-C.E. was rescinded and the new Drug Price Control Order, 1995 came into effect on 6th January, 1995 in supersession of 1987 Drug Price Control Order and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)(59)ECC390
1. The Respondents manufacture P or P medicines and filed a classification list for their product probofex capsule and liquid claiming classification under Item 1B of the old Central Excise Tariff and claiming exemption under Notification No. 17/70. The jurisdictional Assistant Collector felt that the product does not merit classification under T.I. 1B but it would be classifiable under T.I. 68 and issued show cause notice for the purpose. The Assistant Collector considered the reply to the show cause notice and found that in their own "Medical Times" January and March, 1996 their product probofex is mentioned. The Assistant Collector held that the product probofex is not an item of food going by the general usage of the term. He also did not accept the certificate given by the Food and Drug Control Authority that the product will not fall under the category of drug. He referred to their own "Medical Times" journal where the product was recommended for building up haemoglobin with a s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellants have filed this appeal along with stay application and application for early hearing of their appeal as it is a case of live consignment. 2. Heard both sides at length and thereafter it was observed that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage, therefore, the application of early hearing is allowed and the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty is also waived, the appeal is taken up for disposal today itself. 3. The appellant had imported one consignment of ‘Diclazuril’ and filed a bill of entry for clearance of the said goods. The goods were examined and a doubt was raised, the goods imported are drugs and are prohibited under Drug and Cosmetic Act. Therefore, samples were drawn and the opinion of Assistant Drug Controller (ADC) was obtained, who opined that imported goods are drugs. Therefore, the goods were confiscated and directed to re-export the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.50,000/- and penalty of Rs.15,000/-. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(99)LC705Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 26.3.1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P & P Medicines falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Appellants filed classification list in respect of control samples of P & P Medicaments and claimed exemption under Notification No. 171/70 dated 21.11.1970.3. A show cause notice was given to appellants alleging that appellants were not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 171/70-CE as they had not fulfilled the conditions of the notification. The Collector of Central Excise vide impugned order confirmed the demand on the ground that samples were not distinctly different from the regular trade packing. A penalty of Rs. 5000/- was also imposed under 173Q of Central Excise Rules.4. Learned Advocate appearing for appellants submits that appellants had clearly complied with the conditi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. Kopran Ltd., the assessee, was, at the relevant time, engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products - ampicillin trihydrate, amoxycillin trihydrate and cloxacillin sodium. The maximum retail price fixed for these three products was specified in the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987. The assessee therefore declare the value for assessment of these goods for the period 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1992 at such prices that were fixed in terms of notification.2. Notice issued to the assessee subsequently alleged that it actually recovered from its buyers for sale of the goods amount in excess of the maximum price fixed and proposed to apply actual sale price as the assessable value. It also proposed penalty on the appellant and on its two employees S.R. Petty and Sellappan, for the evasion of duty. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner in which he confirms the liability to duty and penalty on the assessee and its two employees.3. The common representative of the appellants co...
Tag this Judgment!