Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. After allowing the application for early hearing of the appeal, we take up the appeal itself for disposal, inasmuch as the issue is covered by the Larger Bench's decision of the Tribunal. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs. The short issue involved is as to whether the price at which at appellant was selling the goods to their customers under section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Acts, is required to be adopted as the assessable value or the maximum selling price fixed by the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 i.e. DPCO. The original adjudicating authority accepted the appellant's contention that the selling price is the normal assessable value under section 4 and accordingly dropped the proceedings. However, on an appeal against the above order of the original adjudicating authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the revenue's stand.Ipca Laboratories v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, reported in 2004 (63) RLT 358 (CESTATE-LB), has held that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1994)(45)ECC32
1. This is an appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) - vide order in appeal No.GS/368/B-I/93, dated 11-5-1992.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of drugs. They inter alia manufacture Pediatric drops for children. They bring in plastic droppers with markings in "ML" from outside, which are duty paid. They filed a declaration under the modvat scheme declaring this item as an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product- "Pediatric drops". However, this was objected to by the Department on the following grounds: 3. These droppers are separately kept in the cartons alongwith sealed bottles of pediatric drops. These droppers are neither used in the manufacture of the Pediatric drops nor used in relation to the manufacture of the final product. Several show cause notices were issued and they were adjudicated by the Asstt. Collector by disallowing the Modvat credit of duty paid on plastic drop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1994)(48)ECC29
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 4165/87, dated 17-9-1987 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, confirming the order-in-original No. S/10-88/86 D dt. 2-4-1986 of the Dy. Collector of Customs Group D Bombay ordering confiscation vide Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, the item declared as "polyvinyl Pyrrolidone" valued at Rs. 1,40,181/- cif but granting option to the appellants to pay fine of Rs. 60,000/- in lieu of confiscation.2. The appellants imported the aforementioned item described as Luviskol K 30 (Polyvinyl Pyrrolidone PVP) and claimed clearance under the licence issued as Additional licences for the policy period 1985-88, and stated the items imported as falling within Entry No. 24 of App. 6 List 8 Part II of the same Policy Book, which related to "Drug/Drug Intermediates". The manufacturer's literature, however showed that the imported goods had the usage as ' Binder for tablets for non-pharmaceutical applications and plastic bandages". The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)LC703Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of potassium iodate conforming to pharmacopoeial standards. It had filed classification lists from time to time claiming exemption from duty on the potassium iodate as a "bulk drug" in terms of notifications which were in force at the relevant time. For the purpose of this appeal, relevant notification is 8 of 1995, dated 9-2-1995. The classification list claiming the benefit of this notification was approved. Subsequently, however, the department issued a notice proposing recovery of duty on clearances of potassium iodate made from 1-5-1994 to 2-5-1994 on the ground that in the absence of an end-use certificate, it could not be said that the product had been used as a "bulk drug". Notice also alleged that the appellant misdeclared potassium iodate in the classification list as "bulk drug". Differential duty was sought to be recovered on the clearances by disallowing the exemption. After considering the cause shown and hearing the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)(101)ELT314Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Appellants are engaged in manufacture of Patent and Proprietary medicaments classifiable under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They manufacture a product called Neo-Mercazole based on bulk drug Carbimazole. They claimed exemption under Notification 29/88 which provides for concessional rate of duty of P & P medicines which are single ingredient and based on bulk drugs specified in Schedule II to Drug Price Control Order 1988. Proceedings were initiated against the Appellants by issue of show cause notice on 30-3-1993. The case of the department is that bulk drug Carbimazole has been deleted from the Second Schedule of the DPCO vide Notification No. 90,524(E)/ dated 5-7-1989. Therefore the Appellant's product Neo-Mercazole is not eligible for the concessional rate of duty. The show cause notice sought to recover the duty for the period 12-2-1990 to November 1990.It was also alleged that they filed price list dated 12-2-1990 in part HI for the product claim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(83)LC878Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Associated Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. have filed the appeal against the order-in-original No. 25/94 dated 21.2.1994 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Bombay-1.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants manufacture patent or proprietory medicine. They were claiming the benefit of notification No. 161/66 dated 8.10.1966 and notification No. 245/83 dated 13.9.1983 which provided a specified discount on Maximum Retail Price (MRP). A show cause notice dated 22.2.1984 was issued to them demanding central excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,34,121.57 paise for the period from 21.6.1981 to 31.1.1984 on the ground that the benefit of the said notifications was not available to them as the conditions laid down in the notifications were not fulfilled by them. The Collector, in the impugned order, confirmed the demand amounting to Rs. 89,265.83P holding that the appellants had not filed the price-list required under para 19 of the Drug (Price Control) Order (DPCO) in the prescribed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)(127)ELT264Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three applications relate to three appeals arising out of the same order. They are therefore being disposed of by this common order.2. We have heard Shri Atul Setalwad, Sr. Counsel appearing along with Shri D.B. Shroff, Advocate for the applicants and Shri V.K. Choubey for the Revenue.3. The first applicant M/s. German Remedies Ltd. manufactured pharmaceutical products. The two other applicants Shri D.K: Arsiwala and Shri K.V. Gazinkar are employees of the manufacturer. The six bulk drugs manufactured by them were captively consumed in two other factories belonging to the manufacturer after clearance on payment of duty. The duty was paid on the basis of price lists filed by them in Part-I. At a later stage investigations were conducted and the declarations made by the assessees with the Drug Control Authorities were examined. The assessees had declared the cost + profit computation to the drug control authority which was higher than the price declared to the Excise officers b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)(179)ELT349Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The issue involved in the above case is demand of duty on the basis of Notification issued by the Ministry of Health, on certain medicaments manufactured by the appellants, viz. Aneudox-12 Forte Injections and Tablets consisting of fixed dose combination of Vitamins B1, B6 and B12. These goods are registered and made under the licence and control of Drugs & Cosmetics Department as patent and proprietary medicaments and were claimed for classification under Sr. No. 3003.10 of the Tariff. However, proceedings were initiated by issue of show Cause Notice in the month of September 2001, by which it was proposed that the said Injections and Tablets consisting of fixed dose combination of Vitamins B1, B6 said B12 were classifiable under SH No.2936.00 and not under SH No. 3003.10 of the Tariff, because the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had issued a Notification dated 14.10.1999 under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, thereby prohibiting manufacture, sale or dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)(97)ELT71Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Appellant against the decision dated 21-10-1992 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) who confirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs dated 18-9-1992 made in Order No. S/10-118/921. The Additional Collector by the Order-in-Original had held that import of Star Aniseed has violated the provisions of Sections 111 (d) and (m) of the Customs Act. He therefore imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The said order was confirmed by, as stated earlier by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The goods are known as Star Aniseed otherwise known as Badiyan Khatal (fruit). Prior to 1992 i.e. for the period between 1990-93 the import of the said material has been rendered by Appendix 6, List 4 which itemised list of Crude Drugs. This item is found in Item 35 thereof. In 1992 when the Exim Policy changed the goods not under Negative Import reflecting under Chapter XV but under restricted items, paragraph 156 thereof...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)(165)ELT346Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The present appeal arises out of Central Excise Valuation of Metronidazole I.P. manufactured and sold by the respondents. This drug was under statutory price control during the relevant period. The appellants adopted the maximum sale price notified under the Drug Price Control Order, 1987 for the purpose of determining the assessable value of Metronidazole I.P. The dispute was raised by the Revenue authorities holding that the respondents had received some additional amounts through debit notes from certain buyers and accordingly demanded Central Excise duty on such additional realisations. The respondents resisted the demand on the ground that the valuation provisions in Central Excise Law contain a specific provision that where the goods are sold under statutorily fixed price, such statutory price would constitute the assessable value and, therefore, the correct duty had been paid by the respondents. This submission of the respondents found favour with the Commissioner (Appeals)....
Tag this Judgment!