9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanding payment due from M/s. Sarvodaya Laboratories. M/s. Sarvodaya Laboratories were unable to make payments for the supply of raw material done by the applicants. To clear the outstanding dues M/s. Sarvodaya offered distributionship of their final products i.e. P P Medicaments which were manufactured and supplied by them to civil and government hospitals. M/s. Sarvodaya explained to the applicant that they had fixed supply orders of P P Medicaments to government, semi-government, medical colleges and hospitals against supply contracts and the said supply contracts could be amended to introduce the applicants as distributor for such suppliers. As per contention of the applicant since the fixed orders of supplies were there for government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng with required documents including test reports, L/R copies, etc. to the applicants. The applicants at their end were required to send their commercial sale bill/invoices, despatch documents to various destinations where medicines would be supplied by M/s. Sarvodaya and collect the sales consideration of such medicaments. The medicines were to be despatched directly from factory premises of M/s. Sarvodaya on payment of duty to the respective consignees i.e. civil hospital. These deliveries were to be made by M/s. Sarvodaya under cover of their excise invoice, delivery challan and L/R showing the distributor s name. Copy of their delivery challan along with copy of L/R and commercial bill was provided by M/s. Sarvodaya to the applicants as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Rules, 2002. Penalties were also proposed on M/s. Vipul Drugs, M/s. Pharmica Money Pharma under Rule 173Q(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and on Shri Bharat D. Shah, Partner of M/s. Pharmica and Shri Vipul N. Mehta, Director of M/s. Vipul Drugs Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner, who confirmed the duty demanded under the show cause notice along with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs. 71,89,516/- on M/s. Sarvodaya Laboratories, Rs. 35 lakhs on Shri R. Sharma, Director of M/s. Sarvodaya Laboratories. Penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs was imposed on M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not being paid on the goods received by them under cover of improper/invalid excise invoice. It was submitted that they are registered dealer for the raw materials and not finished goods. Both under Rule 173Q(1) and Rule 25 penalties can be imposed only on producer, manufacturer, registered person of a warehouse or a registered dealer. Since they were not registered dealer of the finished goods, no penalty could have been imposed under Rule 25 or Rule 173Q. Para 54 of order-in-original holds that they are liable to penalty under Rule 26 but in order portion Commissioner has imposed penalty under Rule 25. Since there was no proposal under the show cause notice to impose penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 penalty unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
