Final Order Nos. 27-33/2003-Nb(A), arising from Appeal Nos. E/2073-2079/2002-A. Case: Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare Ltd. Vs C.C.E., Chandigarh. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Final Order Nos. 27-33/2003-Nb(A), arising from Appeal Nos. E/2073-2079/2002-A |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, And For Respondent: Shri K.A. Mishra, Sdr, |
| Judges | Justice K.K. Usha, President And Shri C.N.B. Nair, Member (T) |
| Issue | Central Excise Act, 1944- Section 11a |
| Citation | 2003 (153) ELT 579 (Tri. - Del.) |
| Judgement Date | December 19, 2002 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
C.N.B. Nair, Member (T), (Northern Bench, New Delhi)
-
The Appellants Are Manufacturers Of ''Horlicks'' Which Is Liable To Duty Under Chapter Heading 1901 Of The Central Excise Tariff. From The Nabha Factory Where The Manufacture Takes Place, Goods Are Cleared In Bulk Packing To Their Packing Stations Located At Various Places. At The Packing Stations The Goods Are Re-Packed In To Consumer Packs And Are Cleared. Central Excise Duty Is Attracted Both When Goods Are Cleared In Bulk Packs From The Nabha Factory As Well As When They Are Cleared After Re-Packing From The Packing Stations. The Duty Paid At The Nabha Factory For The Bulk Clearances Is Availed As Modvat/Cenvat Credit For Payment Of Duty On The Re-Packed Goods At The Packing Stations.
2.All The Present Appeals Relate To Differential Duty Demands In Respect Of Goods Cleared In Bulk From The Nabha Factory During The Years 1994 To 2000. The Facts Of The Case Are That Since The Clearance From Nabha Were To Self For Captive Consumption, The Assessable Values Of The Goods Were Required To Be Determined Based On Their Cost Of Production From Time To Time. During The Relevant Period, Bulk Clearances From Nabha Factory Were Assessed To Duty On Provisional Basis, Pending Finalization Of The Accounts For The Relevant Years. There Was Much Delay In The Finalisation Of Those Assessments As Would Be Seen From The Chart Below:-
Sr. No.
Year
O-I-O No. Final Assessment Order
Date
Amount (Rs.)
1
1994
51 -53/Ce/Dc/Val/Pta/2001
10-9-2001
47223592/-
2
1995
-Do-
-Do-
52649980/-
3
1996
-Do-
-Do-
78757390/-
4
1997
54/Ce/Dc/Val/Pta/2001
9-10-2001
83395312/-
5
1998
V-30/Val/Sb/92/98/Pt. Iii 2068-69
12-9-2001
75104936/-
6
1999
V-30/Val/Sb/92/98/Pt. Ii/2066-67
12-9-2001
81991373/-
7
2000
V-30/Val/Sb/92/98-Pt. Ii/3613
28-8-2001
78776143/-
Upon Finalization Of The Assessments, The Assistant Commissioner Held That The Valuation Adopted For Provisional Payment Of Duty Did Not Include Several Elements Like Royalty, Profit Margin, Advertisement And Marketing Expenditure Etc. He, Therefore, Revised The Assessable Values Upwards, To Include The Excluded Items Also In The Assessable Value And Demanded Differential Duty Of About Rs. 50 Cr. As Indicated In The Last Column In The Chart On The Previous Page. The Appellants Challenged Those Orders Before The Commissioner (Appeals). Stay Applications Were Also Filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial