9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal dated 13-3-2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Nasik. The Commissioner, vide the impugned order, confirmed the demand of differential duty of Rs. 25,73,350/-. She also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- each of Shri Dilip S. Coulagi and Mrs. Nayana D. Coulagi. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. M/s. Sigma Laboratories Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of PP Medicines. M/s. Adelphi Pharmaceuticals and M/s. Heilen Lab. were the loan licencees for whom M/s Sigma were manufacturing PP Medicines under loan licence agreement during 1-6-2002 to 31-3-2005. 4. The facts on record reveal that Shri D.S. Coulagi, proprietor of M/s. Adelphi and Managing Director of M/s. Sigma and Mrs Narayana D. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed party and it is mentioned that Managing Director Shri Dilip S. Coulagi and Mrs. Nayana D. Coulagi have significant influence. Further, the three directors viz. Shri Dilip S. Coulagi, Mrs. Sharayu S. Coulagi (his mother) and Mrs. Nayana D. Coulagi (his wife), holding substantial stakes, are relatives. 6. The approved staff of M/s. Sigma had been liaisoning with the Foods and Drugs Department for submitting the required returns/information and M/s. Adelphi did not appoint any independent staff or depute any person at M/s. Sigma to supervise the quality control of its products and for drawing physician and control samples. The staff of M/s. Sigma was found used for maintaining the records showing purchases of the raw material, supply of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase covered by the Tribunal s Order No. C-II/919-20/WZB dated 24-3-2000 in the case of M/s. Heilen decided in their favour are different from the present case in as much as in the present case M/s. Sigma are manufacturing goods for the loan licence, namely M/s. Heilen and M/s. Adelphi and purchasing entire production for further sale in the market as a sole selling agent/wholesale distributor, whereas in the earlier case M/s. Heilen were manufacturing goods for the loan licencee M/s. Sigma. In the present case, M/s. Heilen and M/s. Adelphi have never handled the goods physically but only on paper. Instead of returning the goods after manufacture to M/s. Heilen and M/s. Adelphi, M/s. Sigma were retaining them in their premises/godown for fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
