2015 (10) TMI 1650 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of differential duty - Imposition of interest and penalty - Notification No. 11/2011-C.E. (N.T.), dated 24-3-2011 - Held that - appellant contends that the last phrase of the Notification is not an essential condition. This contention appears prima facie not substantial though an arguable proposition. In the circumstances, we grant waiver of the assessed liability, on condition that the appellant remits ₹ 6,00,000/- within four weeks and reports compliance by 3-3-2015. In default the appellant would be liable to remit the entire amount and on such deposit as aforesaid would be entitled to stay all of the further proceedings for realization of assessed liability pending the appeal. - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues Involved: Differential central excise duty on Ayurvedic medicament 'Amrutanjan Pain Balm' under Notification No. 11/2011-C.E. (N.T.)

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue of Differential Central Excise Duty: The impugned adjudication order dated 7-6-2013 confirmed a differential central excise duty of approximately &8377; 27.59 lakhs on the Ayurvedic medicament 'Amrutanjan Pain Balm' manufactured by the appellant. The order was based on the ground that the product did not meet the conditions of Notification No. 11/2011-C.E. (N.T.), dated 24-3-2011, which grants abatement for medicaments manufactured exclusively in accordance with specified authoritative books. The crucial condition for availing abatement under the notification was that the medicaments, including those used in Ayurvedic systems, must be sold under names specified in the First Schedule to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The impugned order found that the appellant failed to prove that 'Amrutanjan Pain Balm' was listed as the name specified for their product in the First Schedule of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

2. Pre-Deposit of Assessed Duty Liability: The appellant had pre-deposited &8377; 14,00,000 of the assessed duty liability. The counsel for the appellant argued that the last phrase of the notification was not an essential condition. While this argument was considered prima facie not substantial but arguable, the tribunal granted a waiver of the assessed liability with the condition that the appellant remit &8377; 6,00,000 within four weeks and report compliance by 3-3-2015. Failure to comply would make the appellant liable to remit the entire amount. Upon depositing the required sum, the appellant would be entitled to a stay on further proceedings for the realization of the assessed liability pending the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the differential central excise duty on the Ayurvedic medicament 'Amrutanjan Pain Balm' and the conditions under Notification No. 11/2011-C.E. (N.T.). The decision of the tribunal to grant a waiver of the assessed liability subject to certain conditions has been thoroughly explained, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal implications and outcomes of the case.