2018 (7) TMI 681 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of manufactured goods - ayurvedic medicines - it was alleged that M/s IRLP is manufacturing beauty products as that of cream, lotions, etc. and thus are the manufacturers of the products called cosmetics and toilet preparations which are chargeable to duty at the rate of 40% under Chapter 33 of CETA - related party transaction. Held that - This Tribunal After talking in detail all names of products and descriptions on the label, 72 products of the appellant were held as not to be ayurvedic medicines but as cosmetics. M/s. IRLM and IRLP were held not to be related persons. In terms of Section 4 (4) (c) of Central Excise Act, in as such the price at which M/s. IRLP sold the product was held to be the one to be adopted as the basis for Department for the assessable value. Similarly, M/s IRLP & IRL Marketing were also held to not to be the related persons. Hence, the price at which IRLP sold the goods for the basis of determining the assessable value - The benefit of extended period of limitation was also denied to the Department and the penalties upon IMPL, IRLM and Smt. Vinita Jain were set aside and the matter was remanded only for requantificaton of the duty depending upon the finding about 72 products of the appellants to be classified as cosmetics and depending upon only those Show Cause Notices which were within the period of general limitation. It becomes clear that the only Act assigned to Commissioner while remand was to requantify the duty in terms of above. The matter with respect to limitation and that of penalty was settled and thus has attained finality. Thus, it is held that the Commissioner in the Order under challenge has exceeded its authority being out of the ambit of the direction of Hon ble apex court while remanding the matter. We hereby confirm the demand as far as requantification of duty is concerned. However, we set aside the penalties and the interest imposed - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of products as ayurvedic medicines or cosmetics
2. Allegations of duty evasion and differential duty demands
3. Show Cause Notices and penalties imposed
4. Appeals filed and decisions by Tribunal and Supreme Court
5. Requantification of duty, penalties, and interest by the Commissioner

Issue 1: Classification of products as ayurvedic medicines or cosmetics
The case involved the classification of products manufactured by the appellant as either ayurvedic medicines or cosmetics. The anti-evasion branch alleged that the appellant was manufacturing cosmetics but clearing them as ayurvedic medicines to evade duty. The Tribunal, in its decision, classified 70 out of 92 products as cosmetics and the remaining 22 as ayurvedic medicines. The Supreme Court upheld this classification, with modifications, stating that only 20 products were ayurvedic medicines. The mode of valuation was also discussed, denying the benefit of extended limitation to the Department.

Issue 2: Allegations of duty evasion and differential duty demands
The appellant faced allegations of duty evasion due to misclassification of products. Show Cause Notices were issued, demanding the payment of differential duty at the rate of 40% instead of the 10% duty paid by the appellant on the products cleared as ayurvedic medicines. The total demand raised was 6.5 crores for the period from 1991 to 1997, invoking penal provisions against the appellant.

Issue 3: Show Cause Notices and penalties imposed
Five Show Cause Notices were served on the appellant, leading to demands and penalties. The penalties imposed in the Orders-in-Original were eventually set aside by the Tribunal. However, the Commissioner later imposed penalties and interest under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The appeals challenged these penalties and interest.

Issue 4: Appeals filed and decisions by Tribunal and Supreme Court
Multiple appeals were filed against the Orders-in-Original, leading to decisions by the Tribunal and subsequently by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld most of the Tribunal's findings, requiring only the requantification of duty by the Commissioner. The Commissioner's orders were challenged through multiple appeals, leading to remands and further submissions of evidence by the appellant.

Issue 5: Requantification of duty, penalties, and interest by the Commissioner
The Commissioner requantified the duty amount for various Show Cause Notices, dropping some demands and imposing penalties and interest. The appellant challenged these orders, arguing that the penalties and interest were imposed beyond the scope of the remand directions. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, confirmed the demand for duty requantification but set aside the penalties and interest imposed by the Commissioner, partially allowing the appeal.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of product classification, duty evasion allegations, penalties, appeals, and the requantification of duty and penalties imposed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal's decision provides clarity on the classification of products and the imposition of penalties, ensuring a fair resolution of the dispute between the appellant and the Department.