9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Act, 1944 and the duty liability was to be discharged under the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which mandated the determination of the assessable value after ascertaining the normal price. Secondly, there is no dispute that the appellant is manufacturing “Altec Expectorant 100 ml” on an agreement entered with M/s Lyka Hetero Healthcare Ltd. During the period in question, there is also a factual matrix recorded that the discharge of the duty liability by the appellant is on the raw material + packing material + conversion charges and the margin of profit. This formula for discharge of duty liability is for goods manufactured on principal-to-principal agreement, is a settled law by the apex Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice at which Lyka Hetero Healthcare Ltd. have sold the goods has to be considered as assessable value. The appellant constested the show cause notice on merits. The adjudicating authority, after following due process of law, relying upon CA s certificate, which gave the breakup of the landed cost of materials, packing materials, job-charges and notional profit margin, and considering the entire issue in its proper perspective the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice. Aggrieved by such dropping of the proceedings Revenue preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority after considering the submissions made by both the sides, set aside the impugned order-in-o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material, cost of conversion charges and the profit margin. It is the case of Revenue that this price is very low considering the fact that M/s Lyka Hetero Healthcare Ltd has sold these products at a very high price. 6. We find that the first appellate authority erred in setting aside the order-in-original for more than one reason. 6.1. Firstly, we find that during the period in question, April 2002 to January 2003, P P medicaments were not covered under the regime of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the duty liability was to be discharged under the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which mandated the determination of the assessable value after ascertaining the normal price. Secondly, there is no d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
