9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee in connection with the sale of such goods. Thus, this section is applicable only qua the person who is the manufacturer of the goods and charges something extra for some additional activity done prior the sale of the goods manufactured by him. It is already confirmed on record that the activity done by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. It has also been held and confirmed that appellant is not the manufacturer of the goods sold by him - irrespective the method of how those products are manufactured by the manufacturer, the activity done by the appellant before putting those products to the actual consumers are not held to be the activity of manufacture. The question of the activity of the appellant to be excisable does not at all arise. Nothing additional is brought on record to have the different opinion. Hence, these findings are affirmed. Hence, even for sake of Section 4, the value for the appellant s activity cannot be included in the value of the excisable goods. Otherwise also, the duty liability on excisable goods is that of the manufacturer. It is an admitted fact on record that the manufacturer i.e. M/s. Davo La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umer hence the activity done by them amounts to manufacture as per chapter note 6 to the chapter 30 and chapter note 5 to Chapter 33 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Accordingly, the Show Cause Notice No. 3841 dated 27.12.2006 was served upon the appellants proposing the recovery of central excise duty amounting to Rs.11,65,17,091/- along with the interest and the proportionate penalties. The penalty upon the Director of the appellant was also proposed. The said proposal was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 24/08 dated 30.07.2008. Being aggrieved, the appeal was preferred before this Tribunal. Vide Final Order No. 50353- 50354/2018 with respect to the two Excise Appeals (M/s. WWS Sky Shop (P) Ltd. and Shri Manish Singhal, Director of M/s. WWS Sky Shop (P) Ltd.) was passed allowing the appeal by setting aside the said demand. The department went in appeal before Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Vide order dated 18.02.2020, the final order of this Tribunal was accepted by the Hon ble High Court and the departmental appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved of the said decision, department was before Hon ble Supreme Court and accordingly, the order dated 05.07.2023 as mentione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edic medicaments/pharmaceuticals. As per Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 33, the activity done by appellant amounts to manufacture and as such the appellants are liable to pay the duty of excise. The demand has wrongly been set aside by this Tribunal and the Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It was rightly confirmed by the departmental adjudicating authority. The said order has been prayed to be upheld by confirming the duty demand against the appellant. 6. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the record of the appeal memo, we observe that this Tribunal vide the Final Order No. 50353-50354/2018, while relying upon Board s Circular No. 354/285/2011-TRU dated 08.12.2011 has already held that since there is no value addition made by the appellant after receiving the goods from the respective manufacturers till the time these are sold to the consumers that the activity done by the appellant does no amount to manufacture. The Hon ble High Court, Madhya Pradesh has also observed as follows: Facts of the case makes it very clear that the assessee / respondent before this Court were engaged in trading and telemarketing of various goods and also in selling medicines manufactured b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration for the sale, be the transaction value; (b) in any other case, including the case where the goods are not sold, be the value determined in such manner as may be prescribed. [Explanation: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the price-cum duty of the excisable goods sold by the assessee shall be the price actually paid to him for the goods sold and the money value of the additional consideration, if any, following directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee in connection with the sale of such goods, and such price-cum-duty, excluding sales tax and other taxes, if any, actually paid, shall be deemed to include the duty payable on such goods.] 8. The bare perusal makes it clear that as per Section 4, the duty of excise on excisable goods has to be assessed including the price actually paid to the manufacturer for the goods sold and the money value of additional consideration, if any, following directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee in connection with the sale of such goods. Thus, this section is applicable only qua the person who is the manufacturer of the goods and charges something extra for some additional activity done prior the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
