2023 (7) TMI 916 - SCH - Central Excise

Method of Valuation - Manufacture - Packing / Repacking of goods and re-labeling - Receipt of the medicines duly duty paid from the manufacturers in a packed form mentioning therein the retail price - it is alleged that Tribunal have not considered the issue of legality or otherwise of the duty liability under Section 4 and have considered the duty liability only under Section 4A of the Excise Act - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is found that the issue of illegality of the duty liability under Section 4 of the Excise Act has not been addressed by the Tribunal and the High Court - The appellant is not making any grievance as regards the finding of the High Court regarding illegality of the demand of the duty liability under Section 4A to the extent of Rs.4,34,50,353/-. The appeal(s) before the Tribunal to the extent of the duty liability under Section 4 of the Excise Act stands restored - However, the impugned orders in relation to the duty liability under Section 4A stand confirmed - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the duty liability under Section 4 and Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the failure of the High Court and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to address the legality of the duty liability under Section 4.

Duty Liability under Section 4:
The Supreme Court noted that the Tribunal and the High Court did not address the issue of the illegality of the duty liability under Section 4 of the Excise Act, despite it being raised. The appellant did not contest the finding of the High Court regarding the demand of the duty liability under Section 4A. Consequently, the Court confirmed the judgment concerning the duty demand under Section 4A but set aside the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal regarding the duty liability under Section 4.

Restoration of Appeal(s) before the Tribunal:
The Court ordered the restoration of the appeal(s) before the Tribunal specifically for the duty liability under Section 4 of the Excise Act. However, the impugned orders concerning the duty liability under Section 4A were confirmed.

Direction to the Tribunal:
A direction was given to the Tribunal to adjudicate on the issue of the demand under Section 4 of the Excise Act. The respondent's counsel requested an expeditious decision on the appeal(s), leaving it to the respondent to make such a request before the Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed in part, with the Court confirming the duty liability under Section 4A while setting aside the orders related to the duty liability under Section 4. The Tribunal was directed to address the issue of the demand under Section 4 of the Excise Act.