9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 (4) (c) of Central Excise Act, in as such the price at which M/s. IRLP sold the product was held to be the one to be adopted as the basis for Department for the assessable value. Similarly, M/s IRLP & IRL Marketing were also held to not to be the related persons. Hence, the price at which IRLP sold the goods for the basis of determining the assessable value - The benefit of extended period of limitation was also denied to the Department and the penalties upon IMPL, IRLM and Smt. Vinita Jain were set aside and the matter was remanded only for requantificaton of the duty depending upon the finding about 72 products of the appellants to be classified as cosmetics and depending upon only those Show Cause Notices which were within the period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns, etc. and thus are the manufacturers of the products called cosmetics and toilet preparations which are chargeable to duty at the rate of 40% under Chapter 33 of CETA but the appellants were clearing those products as ayurvedic medicines only on the payment of duty at the rate of 10% advelorem. Resultantly, several Show Cause Notices were served upon them demanding the differential duty in accordance with duty chargeable at the rate of 40%, on all the products of appellants allegedly being the cosmetics. 3. Following are the details of the Show Cause Notices:- Sl. No Date of Show Cause Notice Period of Show Cause Notice Amount of Levy No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inita Jain 4. As a result of all these five Show Cause Notices issued to the appellants, a total demand of only 6.5 crores for the period 01.04.91 to 30.06.97 was raised with the allegations that M/s IMPL and M/s IRL(M) are related persons with respect to the appellants. The penal provisions were accordingly, invoked against them. Against all the Order-in-Originals, the following appeals were filed:- Show Cause Notice No. Appeal No. 1 E/1116-1118/98-C 2 3 E/3221-3223/98-C 4 E/3224-3227/98-C Supplementary Appeal No. E/678-680/99-C 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esultantly, the findings of Tribunal were actually upheld and the Commissioner was only required to requantify the duty amount. In furtherance thereof, the Commissioner vide its Order No. 17/2009 dated 24.02.2010 dropped the demand in respect of Show Cause Notice dated 10.04.1996 and requantified the duty in respect of remaining 4 Show Cause Notices at ₹ 21600779/-. In the appeal thereof before CESTAT vide Order No. 118/2001 dated 28.01.2011, the matter was again remanded back on the grounds of violation of the principle of natural justice. In compliance thereof, the Commissioner vide Order No. 08/2011 dated 27.12.2011 dropped the demands in respect of Show Cause Notice dated 02.05.1997 and 28.10.1997 and requantified the amount in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of 40% is leviable. Resultantly, the impunged Show Cause Notices were issued. While impressing upon the facts, the successive remand of this matter, it is impressed upon that Order under challenge still suffers infirmity as the adjudicating authority has gone beyond the directions of remand. Same is accordingly prayed to be set aside. 9. While justifying the Order under challenge, it is submitted that the appellants were very much aware that most of their products fall under the category of cosmetics and toilet preparation which are leviable to the duty at the rate of 40%. To evade the said duty only they were classifying their products as ayurvedic medicines. Thus, the adjudicating authority below has rightly levied the penalty. Req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the only Act assigned to Commissioner while remand was to requantify the duty in terms of above. The matter with respect to limitation and that of penalty was settled and thus has attained finality. Thus, it is held that the Commissioner in the Order under challenge has exceeded its authority being out of the ambit of the direction of Hon ble apex court while remanding the matter. 11. Further perusal of the record shows that Commissioner has requantified the amount of duty with respect to the two remaining Show Cause Notices being within limitation at ₹ 6505121/-. We are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the Order under challenge to that extent. However, as discussed above, the Order under challenge imposing interest u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
