9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. The dispute in these appeals relates to the assessment of duty on patent and proprietary medicines, during the period from 1-8-1984 to 31-12-1987 when exemption Notification No. 245/83 was in force. The appellants were manufacturers of P P medicines. They cleared the goods under Rule 56A at the semi-finished stage (naked capsules) to M/s. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been discharged in terms of Notification No. 245/83 by M/s. Wockhardt on behalf of the appellants. It is submitted that since full duty as payable on P P medicines had been paid by M/s. Wockhardt no short levy could be alleged against the appellants. As against this, the ld. DR submitted that the appellants who were working under Rule 56A, were liable to pay duty at the time of removal of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them. Duty as leviable was paid by M/s. Wockhardt at this stage. In view of these facts, we are unable to understand how the demand for short levy could be raised under Section 11A of the Act. This Section relates to recovery of duty not levied or not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded. Once the duty has been paid correctly at the time of removal by M/s. Wockhardt, there could be no case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
