1997 (3) TMI 210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rules 9(2) and 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. He also ordered the appellant to pay interest at 20% under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act. 2. Facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of miscellaneous edible preparations falling under Chapter 21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 viz. Alprovit Granules 200 gms, Alprovit Granules 100 gms etc. falling under sub-heading 2107.91 for and on behalf of Loan licence i.e. M/s. Cachet Pharmaceuticals out of and under the brand name of M/s. Cachet s raw materials, packing materials and in accordance with the loan licence agreement over and above manufacture of the said .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d supressed the actual costing of the product Alprovit Granules (P.S.) 100 gms and misdeclared the correct assessable value by deducting margin from the costs of production which is exclusive of profit margin and has controvened provisions of various rules of the Central Excise Rules. Hence show cause notice dated 16-1-1995 was issued covering the period December, 1989 to October, 1992 invoking proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act. A detailed reply, dated 1-3-1995 was given by the appellant as to how they resort to costing is not attracted when comparable price of goods is available. They also pleaded limitation as price list have been approved and some of the RT 12 returns have also been finalised. 6. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rious judgments. 9. Mr. S.V. Singh Ld. D.R. argues contra. The entire approach of the assessee appellant to the Trade notice is not correct in law. The product is not pharmaceuticals or medicines in this case but the product in this case common under miscellaneous edible preparation falling under Chapter 21. He would argue that assessment under the best of judgment provided under Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules will be applicable. 10. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. Price lists for various periods have been filed by the appellants with the following remarks. Products belong to M/s. Cochet Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. sold solely to M/s. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. at above price. Prices in Col. 3 for Sr. No. 2 is derived a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X