2001 (2) TMI 1049 - Commission - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Duty liability on goods manufactured and sold by Silver Oak to Oriflame.
2. Duty liability on imported cosmetics labeled by Oriflame.
3. Immunity from prosecution, penalty, and interest for the applicants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Duty Liability on Goods Manufactured and Sold by Silver Oak to Oriflame:
The Show Cause Notice dated 7.8.1998 demanded a differential duty of Rs. 2,03,46,462 on the grounds that the goods manufactured and sold by Silver Oak to Oriflame should be assessed to excise duty based on Oriflame's resale price to its customers. The applicants admitted this duty liability. The total differential duty amount of Rs. 2.03 crores was paid in full after the Admission Order of the Commission.

2. Duty Liability on Imported Cosmetics Labeled by Oriflame:
The Show Cause Notice also demanded excise duty of Rs. 1,70,75,172 for cosmetics imported by Oriflame during the period from 1.12.1995 to 31.12.1996. The notice alleged that the labeling activity undertaken by Oriflame amounted to 'manufacture' as per Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The applicants contested this duty liability, arguing that the affixing of stickers containing information such as 'marketed by', 'date of manufacture', 'gms', 'manufacturing license number', and 'price in rupees' did not amount to labeling or re-labeling as defined under the Act. They argued that the products were already fully finished and marketable upon import and that the stickers were affixed solely to comply with legal requirements under Indian laws, not to make the products marketable. The Commission agreed with the applicants, stating that the activity of putting stickers for compliance with legal requirements did not satisfy the criteria of labeling or re-labeling under Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 33. Consequently, the demand of Rs. 1,70,75,172 was held to be legally unsustainable.

3. Immunity from Prosecution, Penalty, and Interest:
The applicants sought immunity from prosecution, penalty, and interest, affirming that they had made a full and true disclosure of their legitimate duty liability and had cooperated with the Commission. The Commission found that the applicants had indeed made a full and true disclosure and had cooperated fully. Therefore, the Commission granted immunity from prosecution and penalty. No order was passed regarding interest liability as no interest was demanded in the Show Cause Notice, and the applicants had already deposited a substantial amount of their correct liability before the issuance of the notice.

Conclusion:
The case was settled by accepting the payment of Rs. 2,03,46,462 as the additional amount of duty payable by the applicants. The applicants were granted immunity from prosecution and penal liability under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The settlement would be void if obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts.